Do Skeptics ever convince the Believer?

[stanfr]

I admittedly rarely visit this forum; try not to waste precious time by being online (you know, we only have one life, a pity to spend it in cyberspace rather than Earth), but when I do I frequently see Forum Threads that follow the same basic structure:

1) Proponent makes outlandish claim, generally preposterous on its face, but usually easily provable if it were really valid.
2) Numerous 'skpetics' respond, usually with contemptuous remarks, outright mockery, sometimes lengthy attempts to convince the proponent that he/she is either mistaken or insane.
3) The proponent eventually responds, completely unshaken, offering more 'proof' of their claim.
4) The cycle repeats 'ad nauseum' for hundreds of lines or pages.

This appears to be the same pattern, whatever the claim, from Bigfootry to alleged psychic ability, to weird physics.

From an 'outsider's' perspective, it makes one wonder who really has the more serious psychological issue. What an incredible waste of time, time that could be spent solving the world's problems, feeding the poor, curing the ill, building things, cleaning things up...

Presumably, the responders would argue that they have a duty to refute the proponent, that unchecked the proponents beliefs could be some sort of threat to themselves or others. But, I wonder if it usually has the opposite result, simply giving the proponent the attention he/she desires and strengthening their resolve.

Has a proponent ever changed his/her mind about their beliefs as a result of relentless Skeptical response? I tend to doubt it; if they do, it is more likley that like an addict, they were ready to change.

Rant over...we now return to routine programming...

 

[arthwollipot]

It has been known to happen occasionally. It certainly isn't common.

 

[Whiplash]

Ahh, a post that goes right to my own line of thinking. I have questioned many times the way people respond to others in this regard. More in politics than in skeptical matters. But both are the same thing for the most part. It's a question of what is the best way to convince others that their point of view is wrong, and that your own point of view is correct.

I will concede that people do occasionally "see the light" from such harsh methods. But I will argue till the day I die that it is one of the least effective methods at our disposal, and that the people who engage in the harshest mockery and insults are compensating for their own personal issues of some kind, and are part of the problem, and not the solution.

I speak from my own personal experience.. someone who was raised Christian, and had more than my own share of bouts with skeptical types when I was younger and still not sure what to believe. And still, to this day, in matter of politics, where people often think the more brilliant line of debate is to ridicule and insult your oponent incessantly. As if that is going to make them change their minds. As if that is going to make them suddenly want to be on your side, and respect you.

My experience is that that is a turn off, and get's my hackles up, and makes me less inclined to take them seriously and respect them at all. It makes me defensive and angry. It doesn't make me think I'm wrong. It doesn't make me question anything. It triggers a low level emotional and defensive reaction that is hard to overcome. One that can easily overcome your own critical thinking if you aren't careful.

I've wondered about this as long as I've been a member here. Where someone will post something admittedly ridiculous... and yet I find it disheartening to see people just lambast and ridicule, and not say anything constructive. It makes me feel dirty, and somewhat ashamed to be on their side.

I was hoping for a more noble and professional level of response. But more and more these days, it's the norm to just "LOL, you are an IDIOT!" and walk away. It really is the intellecutally lazy approach. In every way. It's an attempt to force a change of mind through stigmatization and shame. Not based on facts or reality.

 

[stanfr]

Thanks for your response, Whiplash, I completely agree. Of course, not everyone who responds does so with such contempt, but unfortunately those that do are the ones that needlessly drag these 'battles' out. And also, there are those that are well-intentioned and offer lengthy detailed responses in attempt to refute the proponent, but really after a while it should be come clear that there is no end game, then it just becomes a waste of time. In my opinion, wait for the proponent to make a claim that is worth responding to (testable or directly refutable), otherwise silence may be the best approach.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Presumably, the responders would argue that they have a duty to refute the proponent, that unchecked the proponents beliefs could be some sort of threat to themselves or others. But, I wonder if it usually has the opposite result, simply giving the proponent the attention he/she desires and strengthening their resolve.

Carl Sagan said (paraphrasing here) is that we should not make the world a comfortable place for those who do not think critically. To not engage them is to tacitly approve of what they say. These are teachable moments.

Has a proponent ever changed his/her mind about their beliefs as a result of relentless Skeptical response? I tend to doubt it; if they do, it is more likley that like an addict, they were ready to change.

Yes, actually. Chillzero, a moderator here, once believed she had psychic abilities.

But what you have done is set up a straw man. If you surveyed the people posting in these threads and asked them if they thought they stood any real chance of changing the mind of a VFF, Reason1 or Connie Sonne, most if not all wouldn't give it much of a chance at all.

There are plenty of sitters on the fence who like to believe that there are two essentially equal sides of the debate over various paranormal claims. Our discussions show pretty clearly that the sides are not equal. We show that it's not a matter of opinion but of fact. Claimants can prove themselves, but they don't. Skeptics encourage tests that will prove that an ability exists, but claimants repeatedly avoid them. That sends a very strong message to those who come here unsure of what to believe.

Many people are unaware of how to approach these claims. We show them how to develop protocols the prove things one or another. There have been numerous public and private comments from people who say they learn a lot from these threads. More than anything these are exercises in critical thinking. People take these lessons and apply them in various facets of their lives.

It's also important that we skeptics do not allow ourselves to be beaten into submission by repetition and persistence. It's ugly, but it's necessary to keeping the flame of critical thinking burning strong. The woos of the world almost never give up any ground. Sometimes the only course of action is to play them to a draw. If we don't, we'll have given up ground we may never get back again.

 

[athon]

This question motivated me to move into studying education to find an answer. I was never satisfied with the usual methods skeptics employ to try to educate others, so threw myself into looking at how people learn in search of a solution.

You're certainly right in that a good proportion of debate tactics used on forums do little to change minds. Interestingly, it runs a lot deeper than that.

Learning happens on a number of levels, depending on what it is we're discovering. 'Constructivism' used to be huge in pedagogical circles, where it was said teachers should rely on a person's to interact with their observations to learn. So, kids would play with stuff and teach themselves by seeing what happens. The problem with this approach, I find, is that we're missing a key element in how we evaluate the information we encounter.

People aren't passive absorbers of input, slotting it into place as it enters their head according to what they already know. They actively take an idea and subject it to an evaluation procedure based on a wide range of values, often using a learning heuristic. Much of this relies on existing schema, however it also depends a lot on their relationship with the person providing the information, or the context of how the information is being discovered.

Changing the mind of a believer is rarely a simple case of showing them where they're wrong. On occasion, a person might share your own values in evaluating information and simply not have access to certain bits of text. In those situations, discussion - done properly - can be fruitful. Yet more often than not, people have arrived at their conclusions using different values, based more on emotional needs, perception of popularity or an appeal to authority. In those situations, demonstrating how they fail according to your own criteria of internal consistency or logic won't make much difference at all. Knowing how to spot the difference between these two groups is vital in knowing when you're about to waste time entering a losing battle.

Athon

 

[jakesteele]

Carl Sagan said (paraphrasing here) is that we should not make the world a comfortable place for those who do not think critically. To not engage them is to tacitly approve of what they say. These are teachable moments.

Carl Sagan should have a coke and go **** himself. It gives me cold chills when someone has such a fundamentalist mindset that sees everything in black and white/all or nothing terms. "We're right and everybody else is wrong." That's the stuff wars are made of.

I consider Randi style skepticism to be nothing more than "debunking", which has a predetermined agenda that it is false going in and it's just a matter of figuring out how to disprove rather than to weigh and asses. I will say, though, that this is almost exclusively in the areas of woo. With non-emotional issues like string theory or quantum mechanics, etc., the discourse is reasonable and civil and very informative.

Yes, actually. Chillzero, a moderator here, once believed she had psychic abilities.

But what you have done is set up a straw man. If you surveyed the people posting in these threads and asked them if they thought they stood any real chance of changing the mind of a VFF, Reason1 or Connie Sonne, most if not all wouldn't give it much of a chance at all.

There are plenty of sitters on the fence who like to believe that there are two essentially equal sides of the debate over various paranormal claims. Our discussions show pretty clearly that the sides are not equal. We show that it's not a matter of opinion but of fact. Claimants can prove themselves, but they don't. Skeptics encourage tests that will prove that an ability exists, but claimants repeatedly avoid them. That sends a very strong message to those who come here unsure of what to believe.

Many people are unaware of how to approach these claims. We show them how to develop protocols the prove things one or another. There have been numerous public and private comments from people who say they learn a lot from these threads. More than anything these are exercises in critical thinking. People take these lessons and apply them in various facets of their lives.

It's also important that we skeptics do not allow ourselves to be beaten into submission by repetition and persistence. It's ugly, but it's necessary to keeping the flame of critical thinking burning strong. The woos of the world almost never give up any ground. Sometimes the only course of action is to play them to a draw. If we don't, we'll have given up ground we may never get back again.

Fundamentalists are scary
Angry funamentalists are really scary.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Carl Sagan should have a coke and go **** himself. It gives me cold chills when someone has such a fundamentalist mindset that sees everything in black and white/all or nothing terms. "We're right and everybody else is wrong." That's the stuff wars are made of.

Critical thinking is not a black and white issue. Far from it. Critical thinking requires, well, thinking critically and accepting the answer regardless of preconceived notions. It applies to facts though it is useful when forming opinions. Can you name a war that was fought over a dispute about a fact that was testable? I can't think of any, but military history is not an area in which I consider myself an expert.

If you are looking for the critical thinker in a group that is having a debate, the critical thinker will be the one suggesting tests with self-evident results to resolve the issue. Is that such a bad thing?

 

[Hokulele]

There are any number of threads over in Conspiracy Theories where posters who once supported such theories are now skeptics.

And a number of those directly credit what they have learned at the JREF forums.

Here is one example, read the answer to question b).

a) How did you once become a truther? It actually did start with Youtube/Google videos of 9/11. During the afternoons I just couldn't stop watching that. And from Dylan Avery I went to Alex Jones whom I saw wondering around those kids, and I was curious about his claims, so I listened to him. And I just took in everything he said. From Info wars to skull and bones to Owl worshiping. I took it all in. I got to the Bildeberg group, then black helicopters interacting with lights near crop circles, then abductions and UFO videos to New Age interpretations of them, then 2012. I became a Raelean at one point, seeing design in nature (these aliens supposedly created every tree and bird and animal thanks to their creativity), and from the Elohim(the aliens of the Raelian cult) I went to grays and of course, the reptilians. Of course, the reptilians were behind every triangular architecture and ancient symbolics found ANYWHERE, including Mars, and probably were the Illuminati, thinking of taking over the world with a New World Order, using Fugifilm zeppelins with some occult technology to look into our houses and spread mind controlling poison through contrails. Obviously, 9/11 was just one step in their plan.
And yes, all of this reinforced this conviction I had in my mind that there was something going on.
And being a young person, still thinking that I had a long life ahead of me, where I could try and strive to do something great, this was a very nasty punch in the face. And I mean that. And all of this just fell on me in a matter of weeks. I was...what? 16, 17? It wasn't pleasant at all. You got this feeling of chronic frustration and powerlessness. All you could do was smile at your family and watch movies. I spoke of this to my mother and she was always "I'm telling you, watch movies." she would shake her head with laugh when I told her than I knew a lot more than her. Now I understand her.
I got to the point where I could just lie in bed all day. Only getting up of course, "wanting to know more" and watching more videos.

b) What convinced you back from truther to non-truther? Once again, I hope you do not respond something like "truthers are dumb".
It was this website actually. And from here to podcasts and Point of Inquiry to a whole myriad of articles and weekly stuff that just gets me thinking.
My God, were it not for James Randi and the people in these forums I would have lost my mind, I'm sure of it. Forever. Were it not for people like you I would have lost my mind.
These forums taught me common sense again. It's like you forget about common sense when you look into this stuff. But you still think you're using it. You're using it but with a conclusion already in mind. It's hard to explain.
I think something MORE than common sense got me ticking.
But yes, from these forums all my UFO/cryptozoology beliefs just went out the window, and even though I was sad in a way to learn that it wasn't true, I'm glad I'm more truthful to myself. I really try to be honest about stuff like this now.

c) What are your thoughts nowadays about your time as a truther? What mistakes you made back then? Were you 100% convinced, agressively promoting the truth? Whatever comes to your mind.
My thoughts from back then...As I said, it wasn't pleasant.
But what a lesson, you know?...On human psychology and gullibility and the power of innocent misinterpretation, no matter where it comes from.
What's better to learn about their mentality than to actually believe a whole range of crazy stupid beliefs out there? And still come out of it with the drive and excitement to listen to skeptical podcasts every week and reading science news from time to time.
What mistakes? It really was an innocent mistake to just listen to these people, and not think it through. And only listening to their perspective.
I WAS 100% convinced, but I wasn't promoting it. I was aware that I might sound pretty nuts. And i mean nuts to the extreme. It wasn't just 9/11 was an inside job look at this video". That was heartfelt certainty that made you look out the window and feel angry at the world.
I recently went to a concert with a friend of mine and we were waiting for someone to pick us up there was this young man wondering around in the rain smoking, and after a while he came close to us, asking us if we had a cigarette, we said "no we don't smoke". He said "Cool, cool. So how are you?"
A bit cold I said and this rain could stop for a while.
this rain, yes." he said "You know that this rain (at this point I was thinking that he was a global warming denier or something similar), this rain s because extraterrestrials are fiddling with the (don't recall what he said now).
He went on about mind control and whatnot (REALLY crazy amount of blatant obvious non sequiturs) but......he didn't look crazy to me. I was listening to him and I didn't see insanity there.
I guess that's what you get from being "one of them" for a while. You understand them, in a way.

I hope this reply is worth anything.

 

[arthwollipot]

Carl Sagan should have a coke and go **** himself. It gives me cold chills when someone has such a fundamentalist mindset that sees everything in black and white/all or nothing terms. "We're right and everybody else is wrong." That's the stuff wars are made of.

That'd be pretty tricky for him to do, seeing as how he's dead and all. I suggest reading some of his books - especially The Demon Haunted World, because you appear to have an incorrect idea of what he is all about. Sagan has a fundamentalist mindset? Please, educate yourself.

I consider Randi style skepticism to be nothing more than "debunking", which has a predetermined agenda that it is false going in and it's just a matter of figuring out how to disprove rather than to weigh and asses.

Once again, I would say here that you haven't closely examined "Randi style skepticism" at all, because if you had, you would see that it isn't like that. You assume that it's like that.

Let's take the MDC for example - The MDC does not set out with a predetermined agenda to debunk things. On the contrary, the claimants approach the JREF with a claim, which they then attempt to demonstrate. The protocols of the MDC are set up to ensure that they do not cheat - after all, a million dollars is rather a lot of money. But there is no predetermined agenda that says that such-and-such does not exist. There is a predetermined agenda that says that if such-and-such exists, then it should be demonstrable. The JREF then invites people to demonstrate their claims. If they do so successfully, they win a million dollars. No position is held prior to the demonstration.

All that having been said, some of us do come to a conclusion that such-and-such does not exist, having seen many attempts at demonstrating its existence fail. Dowsing, for instance. But it is not a "predetermined agenda" that causes us to come to that conclusion, but an examination of the results of testing.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I admittedly rarely visit this forum; try not to waste precious time by being online (you know, we only have one life, a pity to spend it in cyberspace rather than Earth), but when I do I frequently see Forum Threads that follow the same basic structure:

1) Proponent makes outlandish claim, generally preposterous on its face, but usually easily provable if it were really valid.
2) Numerous 'skpetics' respond, usually with contemptuous remarks, outright mockery, sometimes lengthy attempts to convince the proponent that he/she is either mistaken or insane.
3) The proponent eventually responds, completely unshaken, offering more 'proof' of their claim.
4) The cycle repeats 'ad nauseum' for hundreds of lines or pages.

This appears to be the same pattern, whatever the claim, from Bigfootry to alleged psychic ability, to weird physics.

From an 'outsider's' perspective, it makes one wonder who really has the more serious psychological issue. What an incredible waste of time, time that could be spent solving the world's problems, feeding the poor, curing the ill, building things, cleaning things up...

Presumably, the responders would argue that they have a duty to refute the proponent, that unchecked the proponents beliefs could be some sort of threat to themselves or others. But, I wonder if it usually has the opposite result, simply giving the proponent the attention he/she desires and strengthening their resolve.

Has a proponent ever changed his/her mind about their beliefs as a result of relentless Skeptical response? I tend to doubt it; if they do, it is more likley that like an addict, they were ready to change.

Rant over...we now return to routine programming...

JREF Forum posters DC (formerly Dictator Cheney) and thesyntaxera went through that process here and are now reformed truthers.

I will PM them, because it would be interesting to hear their thoughts on the "relentless Skeptical response".

 

[Darat]

...snip...

There is a predetermined agenda that says that if such-and-such exists, then it should be demonstrable. The JREF then invites people to demonstrate their claims. If they do so successfully, they win a million dollars. No position is held prior to the demonstration.

...snip...

And it should be noted that the "predetermined agenda" is from the challenger - they are the ones that say that their inability is demonstrable not the JREF.

 

[arthwollipot]

And it should be noted that the "predetermined agenda" is from the challenger - they are the ones that say that their inability is demonstrable not the JREF.

Indeed.

 

[Darat]

And since I don't believe in Freudian pseudoscience - that "inability" was a spell-checker mistake!

 

[arthwollipot]

I hadn't even noticed!

 

[DC]

JREF Forum posters DC (formerly Dictator Cheney) and thesyntaxera went through that process here and are now reformed truthers.

I will PM them, because it would be interesting to hear their thoughts on the "relentless Skeptical response".

well i dont want to take the example 9/11, in my oppinion JREF didnt do a cery good job in that case. While i indeed changed my mind in regard to 9/11, it was only partially because of JREF debates and info. because it was mostly just handbagfights between truthers and nontruthers.

But a very good example would be BIO meat.
I have changed my mind totaly there, and also tell others whenever we talk about BIO and food in general.

And mainly there it was Rolfe that convinced me, or atleast she/he made me read more about it from diffrent sources.
I was pro BIO meat (Homeopathic "medicine")
now i am againt BIO meat.

But they didnt convince me yet that Accupuncture doesnt work

 

[Orphia Nay]

well i dont want to take the example 9/11, in my oppinion JREF didnt do a cery good job in that case. While i indeed changed my mind in regard to 9/11, it was only partially because of JREF debates and info. because it was mostly just handbagfights between truthers and nontruthers.

But a very good example would be BIO meat.
I have changed my mind totaly there, and also tell others whenever we talk about BIO and food in general.

And mainly there it was Rolfe that convinced me, or atleast she/he made me read more about it from diffrent sources.
I was pro BIO meat (Homeopathic "medicine")
now i am againt BIO meat.

But they didnt convince me yet that Accupuncture doesnt work

Thanks for your response, DC. It's very interesting.

Do you think that being at a skeptics' forum helped you adopt certain principles of critical/free thinking that led to your changing your opinions?

 

[DC]

Thanks for your response, DC. It's very interesting.

Do you think that being at a skeptics' forum helped you adopt certain principles of critical/free thinking that led to your changing your opinions?

well i know most will laugh now, but actually before 9/11 i was already a sceptic light.

it was more like hanging out on conspiracy theory fora helped me loosing my sceptical skills. i got convinced of stuff i would normaly not get confinced of without evidence. I stopped listening to "the other side" and it turned almost in a sort cult. when i realized it i started posting here on JREF and faced the challange of people demanding evidence or atleast a sound theory.
But in the case of 9/11 it was actually other truthers (Gregory Urich and Dr, Greenings) that helped opening my eyes again.

by the time i arived on JREF the debunkers gave already up on beeing nice and polite. I dont really blame them, i can understand it, but it wasnt helpfull for me.

But in the case of other woo, like Homeopathy, wonderhealings, psychics mindreading and Bigfoot, it is a great forum. Mayn many well educated and literate people debating mostly on a high level that do provide evidence and good sources.

sometimes one can get the impression the scpetics here all think alike.
but reaing a few posts in the Politics sections debunks that.

i would say, sceptics can indeed convince openminded people.
but Naysayers claiming to be sceptics cannot convince openminded people
sceptics cannot convince closeminded people claiming to be openminded.

 

[Carnivore]

Carl Sagan should have a coke and go **** himself. It gives me cold chills when someone has such a fundamentalist mindset that sees everything in black and white/all or nothing terms. "We're right and everybody else is wrong." That's the stuff wars are made of...

...Fundamentalists are scary. Angry funamentalists are really scary.

Further to Arthwollipot's reply, here is Carl Sagan on the use of skepticism:

"Have I ever heard a skeptic wax superior and contemptuous? Certainly. I've even sometimes heard, to my retrospective dismay, the same unpleasant tone in my own voice. There are human imperfections on both sides of this issue. Even when it's applied sensitively, scientific skepticism may come across as arrogant, dogmatic, heartless and dismissive of the feelings and deeply held beliefs of others. And, it must be said, some scientists and dedicated skeptics apply this tool as a blunt instrument, with little finesse. Sometimes it looks as if the skeptical conclusion came first, that contentions were dismissed before, not after, the evidence was examined.

...Imagine you enter a big-city taxicab and the moment you get settled in, the driver begins a harangue about the supposed iniquities and inferiorities of another ethnic group. Is your best course to keep quiet, bearing in mind that silence conveys assent? Or is it your moral responsibility to argue with him, to express outrage, even to leave the cab - because you know that every silent assent will encourage him next time, and every vigorous dissent will cause him next time to think twice? Likewise,if we offer too much silent assent about mysticism and superstition - even when it seems to be doing a little good- we abet a general climate in which skepticism is seen as impolite, science tiresome and rigourous thinking somehow stuffy and inappropriate. Figuring out a prudent balance takes wisdom.

- from The Demon Haunted World chapter 17, The Marriage of Skepticism and Wonder

 

[jakesteele]

I would like to take this moment to apologize to Carl Sagan and the other members of this forum. I have been going through some turbulent times with work and finances and I am very short tempered at the moment and tend to lash out.

I feel like I hijacked the thread with a rude attitude. I would like to apologize and let the thread stay on track.

Respectfully,

Jake Steele