Is there ANY point arguing with believers?

[NeilC]

I have spent a few hours down the pub arguing with some people about certain "alternative health" issues.

You know the drill. Someone makes a big claim about something and you say that you don't think it is actually true and provide evidence. Immediately the discussion's ground is shifted but the original point never answered. As the discussion continues, it inevitabley become an attack on evil "science" and the conspiracy of scientists all willfully blinkered to new ideas - to whit you are accused of being "closed minded" about anything you care to challenge. It becomes clear that they didn't even take O'level biology and so have no idea what science even is. It all becomes confused and you have to duck out with the usual "you have your opinion and I respect it" whilst thinking "you cannot even sustain a simple logical thread for more than 4 seconds you caveman".

Is there any point to trying to convince people to think critically? Is it genetic or something?! Has anyone successfully changed a mind?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

"It all becomes confused": This is your critical observation. There is often neither the ability nor the desire to keep the conversation unconfused. Confusion allows people to think "Okay then, I guess my confused theory is okay, because confusion comes with the territory."

~~ Paul

 

[Bronze Dog]

Usually, you can't convince the believer. Sometimes, however, you can convince the fence-sitting lurkers.

 

[jmercer]

I think... personally... that you have to try, at least. Giving up is fatalistic, no?

Skepticism and critical thinking aren't genetically implanted. If they were, there'd be no woo's and no religions... but the capacity (or potential) to learn skepticism and critical thinking is there.

I don't think you can simply transfer the concepts whole. With any luck, though, you'll plant the seeds of doubt.

 

[chocolatepossum]

I think that with , say, Homeopathy, it can often be fruitful to discuss it with those who casually believe in it without knowing much about it. I think a lot of people think it just uses "natural" drugs found in herbs or plants. Explain to them the wackiness of the theory and they will often agree to read some more about it and re-evaluate their opinion.

I did used to live with this guy who believed all sorts of crap: tarot cards, astral projection e.t.c. and arguing with him about those things was just impossible. Great guy thoough. I think some people just don't accept the need for an argument to be logical, and there's no response to that other than "well in that case you must be owl in human form and therefore owe me £50".

 

[Luke T.]

I have spent a few hours down the pub arguing with some people about certain "alternative health" issues.

You know the drill. Someone makes a big claim about something and you say that you don't think it is actually true and provide evidence. Immediately the discussion's ground is shifted but the original point never answered. As the discussion continues, it inevitabley become an attack on evil "science" and the conspiracy of scientists all willfully blinkered to new ideas - to whit you are accused of being "closed minded" about anything you care to challenge. It becomes clear that they didn't even take O'level biology and so have no idea what science even is. It all becomes confused and you have to duck out with the usual "you have your opinion and I respect it" whilst thinking "you cannot even sustain a simple logical thread for more than 4 seconds you caveman".

The task is difficult. Have you ever seen the mathematical proof for 2 =1? It's like that. Trying to explain the fault in it when the person doesn't even know how to add makes things impossible. The whole concept of "you can't divide by zero" is way beyond their ability to comprehend.

"Why can't you divide by zero?"

"Because then you get ridiculous results like 2 equalling 1."

"Why is it ridiculous that 2 equals 1?"

"Because it doesn't!"

"Says you!"

I'm speaking metaphorically, but you get the idea.

Has anyone successfully changed a mind?

Yes. Many times, but not nearly as often as I have not changed a mind. But enough to keep me going.

Two of my favorite mind-changing moments:

I changed my wife's mind on psychics. Took right here to this site, years before the forum was created, and showed her a sample psychic reading Randi has on here. She had just been to a psychic that day and when she read Randi's reading, she was immediately converted to skepticism. She is now rabidly anti-psychics. Hates them.

I changed one guy's mind about the lunar landings being faked by asking him to tell me how many people that would take to keep secret.

 

[Luke T.]

Oh, and I have debunked countless chain emails sent to me by my coworkers by hitting the "Reply to all" button and linking the applicable Snopes web page. This has cut down on the number of chain emails we all get dramatically. In fact, it has become something of a game around work to see who can debunk those things the fastest.

 

[Dogdoctor]

One thing talking to beleivers does is that it teaches you the arguments used by beleivers of whatever mumbo jumbo you happen to be talking about. You can then try out various different counter arguments and see which deliver the best results. In the case of everything becoming confused, you can practice keeping the conversation on track. You will get better at it the more you do it. However is there any reason beyond that? If someone is listening in and is undecided a very clear and logical argument is powerful and convincing.

 

[Bronze Dog]

She had just been to a psychic that day and when she read Randi's reading, she was immediately converted to skepticism. She is now rabidly anti-psychics. Hates them.

Smart women are sexy.

 

[c4ts]

Makes you look smart in comparison.

 

[pjh]

Is there any point to trying to convince people to think critically? Is it genetic or something?! Has anyone successfully changed a mind?

Here's the only way to do it, forget science, double blinds, placebos, biology etc, stick with anecdotes.

For every claim, just offer an equally unsubstantiated counter claim.

"my friend's aunt judith had her cancer cured by homeopathy"

gets the response

"Well my friend derek's dad tried homeopathy and it made everything worse, caused the cancer to spread faster"

You know they're lying, so have no compuction about lying yourself.

Trying to argue science with believers in a pub just ain't gonna work.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Dogdoctor said:
In the case of everything becoming confused, you can practice keeping the conversation on track.

Try keeping a conversation on track here. I double-dog dare you.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Forteans_and_Skeptics/

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

pjh said:
Here's the only way to do it, forget science, double blinds, placebos, biology etc, stick with anecdotes.

For every claim, just offer an equally unsubstantiated counter claim.

I never thought of that.

~~ Paul

 

[oglommi]

I have spent a few hours down the pub arguing with some people about certain "alternative health" issues.

You know the drill. Someone makes a big claim about something and you say that you don't think it is actually true and provide evidence. Immediately the discussion's ground is shifted but the original point never answered. As the discussion continues, it inevitabley become an attack on evil "science" and the conspiracy of scientists all willfully blinkered to new ideas - to whit you are accused of being "closed minded" about anything you care to challenge. It becomes clear that they didn't even take O'level biology and so have no idea what science even is. It all becomes confused and you have to duck out with the usual "you have your opinion and I respect it" whilst thinking "you cannot even sustain a simple logical thread for more than 4 seconds you caveman".

Is there any point to trying to convince people to think critically? Is it genetic or something?! Has anyone successfully changed a mind?

If somebody belives in something really silly and simply don't listen to logic then they meost likely have delusions and talking sense into them is like convincing Einstein that the moon is made of cheese.
Personally i know people who have weird delusions most likely triggered by drugs.

One person I know believes that He is filmed by hidden cameras everywhere the film is the sold to the underground in Japan where He is a big star. Convincing him of anything else is impossilbe.

Also my brother have delusions. The results of a mispent youth smoking to much weed and other drugs.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Try keeping a conversation on track here. I double-dog dare you.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Forteans_and_Skeptics/

~~ Paul

Soooo True. Heck I don't think you can keep a conversation on these boards directly on track. They often splinter into subgroups or subtopics which somewhat lose focus about the original concept. However in person, one on one is a different situation.

 

[Ersby]

Try keeping a conversation on track here. I double-dog dare you.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Forteans_and_Skeptics/

~~ Paul

I clicked on that link and the first thing I saw was a post directing me back to this thread. Then I got dizzy and fell off my chair.

[on topic] If you are going to argue with believers, then be careful about them changing the subject. Stop them from doing that and you'll be fine. Even if it's a new subject that you know a lot about and think you'll be able to beat them, don't do it. Stay on target. [/on topic]

 

[Nucular]

Like others have said, two reasons it can be fruitful, if infuriating, to argue with believers in such a fashion are

1) You might just sow the seeds of doubt about whatever you're talking about to whoever you're talking to

2) Bystanders may be more affected

I'd add a third,

3) Although you might not shift the belief in question, I've found that often when people hear the 'sceptical' approach, they find themselves using it to assess new claims that they haven't yet invested anything of themselves in.

Keep bickering, Slossy!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ersby said:
I clicked on that link and the first thing I saw was a post directing me back to this thread. Then I got dizzy and fell off my chair.

Gee, I wonder if the owner of that Yahoo! forum lurks here? In fact, she sometimes posts here, too.

~~ Paul

 

[Nex]

Well, titter away over on JREF and the like.

Titter titter. Titter titter titter. Titter, titter titter titter, titter titter. Titter? Titter titter, titter titter titter titter titter. Titter titter titter.




Sometimes I just can't help myself.

 

[mayday]

I guess about as much as point as arguing with nonbelievers.