Hitting a brick wall

[Rascal]

Hey folks,

Long time skeptic, first time poster.

(OK, quick skeptic bio: I've been keeping up with Randi for nearly 30 [!!] years; have known about things like the Skeptics Society for some time but never got around to really getting involved until fairly recently; attended TAM2 and had a dandy time, especially when I got to share the stage with Julia Sweeney during Banachek's performance.)

Anyway, the thing that has compelled me to delurk and make this first post is an incident that happened last night. My wife and I were over at a friend's house for dinner along with two other couples who we had not met before. The first ten minutes or so were filled with standard dinner chat, until Liz drastically changed the subject and went off in a whole new direction.

[ Disclaimer. Her name wasn't Liz, but I'll be damned if I can remember what it really is. I am absolutely horrible at remembering names until I've met someone about 10 times. But she kind of looks like a Liz I used to know so I'll use that. And for kicks let's call her husband Xavier.]

Liz was going nonstop with a meandering discussion of energy fields, touch therepy, homeopathy and all those lovely things. All that I probably could have tuned out, but it became harder to ignore when she launched into the inevitable attack on *science* and how it is closed to these very real things that people have known about for thousands of years. And by the way, I put the asterisks around *science* to denote that snear that crossed her face whenever she said the word.

It was though Why People Believe Weird Things had been turned into a play and I was in the front row of the opening night show. But still, I was wrestling with that decision about whether to get on stage and attempt to interject a bit of reason into the performance, or just continue to be the polite dinner guest and hope that the conversation turns back to Janet Jackson's breast.

But then she went a bit too far for me. She got into the topic of mystic healers and the amazing way they can just reach right into your body and extract the very thing that is making you ill. At this point I had no choice but to gently point out that this is an old magicians trick and that no healer has ever been proven to be authentic. That's when Xavier finally piped up and said "That's just a rumor! The healers are real!"

It turns out that Xavier knows someone who actually went to a healer and had a lump of bloody tissue extracted from her knee. And that, my friends is all the proof he needed. I asked if her knee problems had been documented by x-rays or MRI before and after the "surgery" and he said that "oh, I'm sure they were." In other words, no. I asked if the patient kept the tissue that was removed, and well, no, she didn't. When I pointed out that a very simple tissue test to verify that the mass actually belonged to the person would go a long way towards validating these claims, Liz began speaking to me like I was a six-year-old child saying things like "I respect your skeptical viewpoint, but..."

I thought I would try one final thing. I said, "OK, which is the more likely scenario: That someone is simply duplicating a trick that many magicians do in their acts, or that someone actually has the power to open a person's body, remove tissue, and heal the incision area?" When Xavier said that the latter was the more likely scenario, I knew I was up against a brick wall.

Oh, who am I kidding. I knew I was up against a brick wall the moment I opened my mouth but I really wanted the practice. Everything turned out OK... I found some way to segue into a new topic and we resumed our polite dinner banter.

So here's the question -- what is your personal breaking point? When do you feel compelled to step in and say "uh, wait a minute..."? How many people would pay $39.95/month to have Randi on retainer, at-the-ready to answer the phone and take on your side in a conversation?

 

[espritch]

I was talking to a lady that works at my office one day and happened to mention evolution. She promptly informed me that her ancestor weren't monkeys. My immediate thought was to respond with “Oh, that’s right. Your ancestors were a lump of clay and a spare rib. I can certainly see how that’s much more reasonable.” However, as she is an otherwise decent person and I didn’t really see much to be gained by arguing the point, I just let it drop.

I generally find it best to avoid discussions involving religion. People take it personally and feeling will be hurt. With regard to other irrational beliefs, I’m much more willing to confront them. In the end, though, it’s almost never a hill to die on.

 

[Powa]

I don't have much patience with such matters. When I talk to people with silly beliefs I just try to joke casually about their beliefs (trying not to hurt their feelings) and don't persue it very far (hoping that no one notices the steam coming out of my ears).

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I'd guess Randi would have been a complete ass about it, and the meal would have been ruined for all.
Your brand of skepticism, though perhaps ineffectual (those brick walls are there to stop knowledge from getting through) is IMO the right course.

All one can do is try. Politely.

 

[Mercutio]

I try to let the punishment fit the crime. Usually that means I am very polite and friendly, and I will gently lead them to the conclusion that a) I actually do know what I am talking about--both sides of it, and I know their side better than they do themselves, and b) that there are usually perfectly good reasons for their believing what they do, but that this in no way means that they are correct, and c) that while some of the things they speak of are simply matters of faith, others are testable questions and can be empirically examined--and that usually they have been, and I know the studies. (just for the record, if I do not have all the ammunition I need, I am unlikely to jump into the argument. This is why I don't argue politics here )

I try always to be respectful and polite, to acknowledge their views and feelings, and to do my best not to make them feel like idiots. If they feel threatened, they will react, and my opportunity to teach is pretty much gone. On the other hand, sometimes they will up the ante, and (again, depending on the circumstances) I will be forced to eviscerate them. Again, always from a position of knowledge and always with references at the ready.

I suppose it goes without saying that it is extremely important to listen carefully during all this...you must address what they say, not the stereotype of their position. Besides, if you address something other than what they say, they will remember that you sidestepped their issue.

 

[iain]

I don't want to force my views on other people any more than I would want other's religious views forced on me.

I'll often mention factual information to people or just let them know about alternative interpretations; but I don't push it. I would never push atheism on people - we're all entitled to our beliefs and opinions. Anyway, it would just put people's backs up and probably be counterproductive.

 

[uneasy]

I have a tactic that I'm not sure works, but I'm sticking to it because it's easy. If someone annoys me with that stuff, I punish them by depriving them of my charming company. The drawback is that considering their lack of reasoning powers, they probably never connect that fact that they spout nonsense with the fact that I never talk to them again. People are still spouting strange beliefs all around me, so maybe I'm not as charming as I think.

There's not much that can be done in most cases, so I take the easy way out. Children are where it gets more complicated. I feel more responsibility to talk with them. Then I take the tactic that any truth might take hold someday, so it's worth some effort.

 

[jcon96]

S'okay, my wife had to about drag me out of brunch this morning. While we were quietly eating our meal, a group of 6 were seated at the table next to us, and immediately began having a loud conversation on various topics such as:faith healing and the godless heathens race to suppress it, those damned homos wantin to marry like "real" people, how si is so pervasive in society and how the "lord" is gonna come clean it up, and how themdamned "liberal eggheads" gonna allow the good xtian folks to get run outta town and how they were the oppresed minority!

Needless to say,I was chewing my tounge off and was about ready to stand up,walk over and announce myself as a heathen liberal egghead and ask them to please keep their voices down! The other half must have noticed my expression cause all of a sudden she grabs my wrist and whispers "don't even think it!" Guess I was just a little too obvious. Anyway, thanks for letting me vent this. I loe the fact the xtians moan and cry how they are the oppressed minority!

 

[TheBoyPaj]

I'm not very good at keeping my mouth shut. I do sometimes come across as being a bit fierce, or at least so my wife says.

I think next time this situation arises I will just mention that what they are saying offends me and ask them not to discuss such issues. If it were the other way round I am sure I would be expected to respect such a request.

 

[epepke]

It turns out that Xavier knows someone who actually went to a healer and had a lump of bloody tissue extracted from her knee.

As Jean Shepherd once pointed out, the saddest words of tongue or pen are not "It might have been" but rather "What I should have said was..."

That having been said, what I usually say in this kind of situation is "What were the lab results?"

"Huh?"

"The results of submitting the excised tissue to a lab analysis, especially to determine whether it was cancerous. What were the lab results? Was it cancerous or benign?"

"Um, there was no lab analysis."

"What, no lab analysis? There's always a lab analysis, no matter how the tissue was removed. That's because, even if the mass was removed, it might have shed cancerous cells that could grow in a completely different system of the the body!"

"Um, er."

You can ?robably take it on from here.

 

[Rascal]

Re: Re: Hitting a brick wall

That having been said, what I usually say in this kind of situation is "What were the lab results?"

Yep, that's the direction I was hoping to go by asking if the "patient" had kept what was "removed." But to Xavier, the only proof that mattered was that her mysterious knee pain was now gone. Oh, and that she actually saw the healer stick his fingers into her knee (emphasis his).

Oh well. I knew I didn't stand a chance of getting them to see just how riduculous this all was, but I couldn't just sit there and nod.

 

[Toastrider]

I believe it was Ben Franklin who said 'A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.'

Zealotry -- whether it's new-age gibberish or old-age fundamentalism -- is virtually impenetrable to logic, reason, and fact. You might as well try to puncture Chobham tank armor (used on Abrams MBTs) with a 9mm pistol.

The only thing that can shake a zealot is a direct, massive blow at the very foundation -- and that's rare. You have to hit them with such a mass of directly contradicting data that they HAVE to acknowledge it -- and even then, they might shrug it off. It's a problem similar to one I had in high school, when I tried to explain that through carbon-dating analysis, the Earth HAD to be older than 4 or 6 thousand years. 'Oh, God made it that way to weed out the unfaithful.'

Now, I was (still am) a semi-faithful Roman Catholic, and even -I- didn't buy that malarkey. I believe my exact words were 'Excuse me, did you miss the part about lead us not into temptation?'.

--Toasty

 

[iain]

I believe it was Ben Franklin who said 'A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.'

Zealotry -- whether it's new-age gibberish or old-age fundamentalism -- is virtually impenetrable to logic, reason, and fact. You might as well try to puncture Chobham tank armor (used on Abrams MBTs) with a 9mm pistol.

True - though I think most opinions people have with any emotional conviction fall into this category whether it's belief in faith-healers or a heart-felt opinion on whether gun control is right or wrong.

I've found that conversations with people about things I've felt strongly about have sometimes changed my opinions; but often only days, months or years later. Never feel that a discussion has been a complete waste because the person hasn't instantly seen the light and begged you for forgiveness of their wrongheaded ways - who know what will happen down the line?

edited to add - just looked back and I seem to be contradicting my earlier post in this thread. Oh well - guess I've still got some work to do to get my opinions on this issue straightened out

 

[sackett]

. . Never feel that a discussion has been a complete waste because the person hasn't instantly seen the light and begged you for forgiveness of their wrongheaded ways - who know what will happen down the line? [/i]

A good point. Few people will change their minds on the spot -- of course -I- would, but -I'm- wonderfully honest and intellectual, not to mention humble -- but unless they make a conscious effort not to, they'll go away and think about what you said.

A tactic I try when circustances are right, i.e., when I'm not likely to get punched in the kisser, is to say, "Well hell, if you can believe anything you want, why don't you believe that rainwater is beer? You wouldn't have to drink it, but I'd be grateful, c'mon, be a buddy --" until they get disgusted and drop the subject. This may not shake the foundations of their faith, but it can start a few cracks.

 

[uneasy]

I came across this quote from Thomas Jefferson this morning, and it made me think of this thread.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
- Thomas Jefferson

 

[Tricky]

I try to let the punishment fit the crime. Usually that means I am very polite and friendly, and I will gently lead them to the conclusion that a) I actually do know what I am talking about--both sides of it, and I know their side better than they do themselves, and b) that there are usually perfectly good reasons for their believing what they do, but that this in no way means that they are correct, and c) that while some of the things they speak of are simply matters of faith, others are testable questions and can be empirically examined--and that usually they have been, and I know the studies. (just for the record, if I do not have all the ammunition I need, I am unlikely to jump into the argument. This is why I don't argue politics here )

I try always to be respectful and polite, to acknowledge their views and feelings, and to do my best not to make them feel like idiots. If they feel threatened, they will react, and my opportunity to teach is pretty much gone. On the other hand, sometimes they will up the ante, and (again, depending on the circumstances) I will be forced to eviscerate them. Again, always from a position of knowledge and always with references at the ready.

I suppose it goes without saying that it is extremely important to listen carefully during all this...you must address what they say, not the stereotype of their position. Besides, if you address something other than what they say, they will remember that you sidestepped their issue.

Yeah, I figured you to take the mercutingratiating path. You're so damn nice. I would be tempted to do something like going along with them, supporting their stories and adding my own, which got ever wilder, ("And then the healer reached inside his head and pulled out his brain. He swapped the left and right lobes, and after that, his scizophrenia was cured!") There would have to be some point at which they realized that they were being mocked, but then they would also have to realize that they had been very gullible up to that point. Then you might gently ask, "why did you believe me? It was obviously impossible stuff?"

 

[Loon]

The only thing that can shake a zealot is a direct, massive blow at the very foundation -- and that's rare. You have to hit them with such a mass of directly contradicting data that they HAVE to acknowledge it -- and even then, they might shrug it off.

I think this is why a lot people continue to believe weird things.

Start with normal things:

Lots of people truly believe that Bush will be relected. A roughly similar number truly believe that Kerry will be elected. One group will be hit with massive contradictory evidence at the beginning of November. That's because both groups have a highly falsifiable belief- for one side, there will be no excuses, reasons, or benefits to continue believing.

Another example of a falsifiable and therefore perishable belief: "God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."

Now take something like "psychic surgery." You can get plenty of evidence *suggesting* that it's crap. But you won't find much that directly refutes it. And you certainly won't find anything that has the visceral and emotional impact of the stories that lead to the belief. Even if they witness a surgery failing, they can say "well, nothing is completely perfect- the surgeon is human, he makes mistakes."

The "contradictory" part is easy. The "massive" part is damn near impossible.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Hitting a brick wall

Yep, that's the direction I was hoping to go by asking if the "patient" had kept what was "removed." But to Xavier, the only proof that mattered was that her mysterious knee pain was now gone. Oh, and that she actually saw the healer stick his fingers into her knee (emphasis his).

Yeah, but there's a kind of knack to doing this. I've worked with schizophrenics, so I'm pretty good at not questioning beliefs directly. Instead, if you're dealing with ostensibly normal people who are probably not going to become violent, you have to have a couple of levels of indirection.

Which is why I suggested "what were the lab results" rather than "what happened to the tissue." Because it requires, or at least gives the person an opportunity to think. "OK, lab results. Of what? Maybe the tissue. Hmm... what happened to the tissue?" Etc. and so on and so forth.

You have to let people come up with the answer themselves, or else is didn't work.

Different but not entirely unrelated anecdote. At the house where I lived in college, somebody decided to invite some people over and show Faces of Death. Maybe you've seen it; it's a really dumb shock movie. Nothing wrong with shock movies, but it contained a lot of bogus nonsense that for some reason a lot of people took seriously.

There was one scene with some really great cinematography of someone who had fallen down a cave. Pretty good special effects. I mean, it was a good set, comparable to anything in Fantastic Voyage. My girlfriend and I were laughing our butts off, which annoyed some of the Gen-X members present. So I freeze-framed it. (It was my VCR anyway.) It was really quite an good set, but it looked like an ant farm, and the cover shot showed the whole cave from the rescuers down to the victim.

I simply asked, "Who is holding the camera?"

One of the Gen-X members said, "Well, maybe they dropped the camera down."

I said, "OK, maybe someone dropped a camera down, during a rescue operation, and it landed just right to show a nice cinematic cover shot. But isn't there supposed to be, like, some rock there? We can see the whole scene, from the top to the bottom. Why don't they just throw a rope ladder down and not go back and forth in the cave?"

Not too long later, these Gen-X kids were actually competing with each other to see who could pick out the most flaws in the storytelling.

I considered that a success.

 

[Oleron]

My anecdote is from a couple of years ago when I visited Stonehenge on a tour with a bus full of new age types. Nice people, just a bit too eager to believe whatever they're told.

Our guide did the usual dowsing tricks, finding ley-lines all around the stones. I politely mentioned the ideomotor effect as a possible explanation for his 'discovery' and was immediately identified as the token skeptic in their midst.

After being patronised for my sad world view on the way home on the bus I re-stated my view that the dowsing rods weren't picking up on ley-lines or any other source of energy.
Then, as a throwaway comment really, I mentioned that the only energy source in the circle might be the tiny residual radioactive decay of the elements in the stones. (I'd seen a geiger counter passed over granite before and knew there was a detectable level of radiation emitting from certain rock types). I really wasn't sure whether this was the case or not with the Stonehenge stones but the party jumped on this idea and within 5 minutes had accepted this dubious science as the basis for a whole new theory about ley-lines!

I gave up at that point, realising I was actually adding to their belief system! Oops.

 

[Rascal]

Another example of a falsifiable and therefore perishable belief: "God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."

That, BTW, is my single favorite line from all of television history.