Skepticism and debating

[Fluffy Ape]

I've always loved discussing/debating and when you are a skeptic that is a thing you will most likely do. I would like to hear a bit about how other skeptics discuss and I have some questions about debating further down.

My life as a conscious skeptic began a half a year ago. A friend of mine showed me an episode of nova (on public tv, so payed for by the public). On that show was a 9/11 conspiracy theory. To be honest, the show did make me curious. When looking at the show it actually made me wonder about some points. How is it possible that building 7 collapsed etc (don't answer this, I know now). So for a few minutes I was sorta/ kinda a halfconspiracy believer. sorta. I knew there was no conspiracy but there were too many things left unanswered for me. Now I know everybody will say the following, but I do not consider myself a dumb person. I have always been skeptical about a lot of things. So I began searching the internet for information and quickly got all the answers on my remaining questions. It did take me a few hours but it was worth my time. It was clear for me that the documentary had serious flaws in it. (I'm not talking about loose change btw. which was also terrible)

The reason for my little story is for the following. The whole 9/11 thing cost me some time. I had to read, see what the conspiracy theories were, see how it is debunked etc. It was a good exercise for me since I've been completing that circle of 'research' every time I hear some new wooism.

Here is my 'problem': Being a skeptic costs a LOT of time. Every time some new woo pops up you need to debunk it. Sometimes you need to read a lot to properly debunk it. How can you possibly keep up with all the conspiracies and other woo popping up daily! Good logic always helps against ridiculous woo. But then there are topics which are more complicated.
For example Global Warming. I'm not going to take any stance here since it is not relevant here but I choose this topic because it is a complicated one. There are a lot of articles etc arguing for the existence of global warming and a few against. Then there are different opinions on the amount of troubles global warming brings. etc etc. In short: A complicated topic.
My question: How do you even discuss a topic like this when you are not even sure what is the truth?

And even then there are still the 2 situation in which all the knowledge in the world can not help you in the discussion and when discussion is futile:

1: Someone will not believe you even when you give perfectly logical reasons for something being a certain way (or not). When I was debating someone on a certain economic subject, all economic theories taught on the university were being disregarded as "not working in practice" even though my 'opponent' had not studied anything at all and all economic theories used are widely used and verifies empirically. He was not swayed by reason and refused to listen. How can you debate that?
My answer: you can't!

2: Someone had a personal experience. You all know about this one. You are having a discussion about f.e. the nonsense of faith healers who project their magical healing powers into water through the radio and the believer plainly says: "But it helped me. So it's true."

How can you possibly debate in these 2 situations? I personally believe it's not possible. You will only make the believer mad at you and yourself frustrated.

Debating as a skeptic is not easy. Sometimes it's futile, sometimes it's so unclear what is the truth, that taking a stance is impossible. When other (less informed) people DO take a stance, it's tempting to take the other sides just for the sake of the argument. How do you deal with that?

Then there's the risk of making people mad. I personally chose not to put on the kiddiegloves for anyone. I will ALWAYS debate a person when he/she says something which I believe to be not true. Wether it is about religion or politics, wether it's a friend or my grandmother. I don't care. When you have an opinion, you better be prepared to defend it. Only when I will hurt someone by debating (F.E. When someone has lost someone) will I hold back.
What is the stance of other jref members on this topic?

 

[kellyb]

My question: How do you even discuss a topic like this when you are not even sure what is the truth?

You just admit that you don't know. Listen to people who know more than you do.

How can you possibly debate in these 2 situations? I personally believe it's not possible. You will only make the believer mad at you and yourself frustrated.

You're right. You can't win a debate with someone who refuses to look at evidence. But on the bright side, many people are quietly converted to skepticism just lurking on other people's debates of that nature. So assume there might be a silent audience listening.

When other (less informed) people DO take a stance, it's tempting to take the other sides just for the sake of the argument. How do you deal with that?

Well, I don't think it's a good idea to debate with woos over subjects you know nothing about. Stick to the subjects you do know something about. Whatever interests you. People tend to accumulate knowledge more easily when they're genuinely interested in the subject.

 

[LibraryLady]

First of all,



Intelligent debate can only help our cause. If we cease to debate, the woos win by default. One thing you must to, to be able to debate intelligently, is read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, and read some more. Some good Web sites might help, such as this, this, this, and/or this.

Have at it!

 

[slyjoe]

I have found, especially for scenario 2, that you don't attack THEIR experience. By analogy, or by outlining something that appears similar but is up the same alley, you can enlighten them on how a particular outcome may have come about. Then, I like to ease them into thinking about other ways their experience may have come about. Frontal attacks generally don't work.

ETA: I'm not sure you need to be an expert in everything. A lot of woo is so logically inconsistent that you can debunk it without really being an expert.

 

[money]

I

Here is my 'problem': Being a skeptic costs a LOT of time. Every time some new woo pops up you need to debunk it. Sometimes you need to read a lot to properly debunk it. How can you possibly keep up with all the conspiracies and other woo popping up daily!

Welcome!

It does take a lot of time... fortunately we have places such as this to rub shoulders with very knowledgeble people in many different areas.

Also, woo seems to keep reinventing itself. For example, another thread was detailing the new woo book "The Secret," claiming it is basically a remix of some other positive-thinking philosophy in the 80's, which also had a predecessor. People have been fooling each other with cold and hot reading forever.

Woo doesn't seem to be that creative, to me... it will bastardize legitimate science (eg- anything quantum) in an attempt to sound intelligent and make money.

 

[Fluffy Ape]

Well, I don't think it's a good idea to debate with woos over subjects you know nothing about. Stick to the subjects you do know something about. Whatever interests you. People tend to accumulate knowledge more easily when they're genuinely interested in the subject.

Sure I do not wish to debate someone on a topic I know little about. Unfortunately when someone starts discussing something (like global warming for example) based on seeing just 1 documentary, I tend to choose the other side. Even though I don't know what the truth is, I can debate them based on the little bit I know. So even though I can discuss something with them, I personally feel like I'm half lying. Why? Because I don't know whether what I'm saying is true. How do you deal with that?
Not discussing it? I don't think that's the right course.
Reading more? Sure! That's a good way. Unfortunately Global warming is pretty complicated. I'm not a climatologist. So that means I will not know enough about global warming unless I sacrifice time I need to spend on my study. I'm not prepared to do that.

Why do I choose global warming as an example. Because
1-Everybody seems to have an opinion on it and seems to be an expert. Even though they are not!
2-It is not a topic about which you can form an opinion based on only logic. You need to read more about the theory behind it to properly form an opinion and even then it is not clear whether you know enough.

So how do fellow jref members deal with topics like this?( I don't want to know what you think off global warming, only how you deal with discussing a topic like this.)


Librarylady: Thanks for the welcome and the links. I didn't have some of those.

Slyjoe: But still they believe.... My example about the healing water was based on the truth. Someone I know actually believed it. In this case it was so ridiculous that all I had to do was point out the ridiculousness of it for them to see just how ridiculous it was. But afterwards she still said: "But it helped me!"
Futile, just plain futile.

money: About bastardizing legitimate science: That is a tough one for me. When someone bastardizes quantum mechanics they can make the most outrages claims without anyone being able to provide a counterargument. Unless there is an expert on quatum mechanics around. Why? Because it is a difficult subject. So they can sound like a legitimate expert without anyone beeing around to point out their flaws. So that is one case of woo which is quite difficult to debunk by purely logic reasoning.

 

[Cuddles]

Why do I choose global warming as an example. Because
1-Everybody seems to have an opinion on it and seems to be an expert. Even though they are not!
2-It is not a topic about which you can form an opinion based on only logic. You need to read more about the theory behind it to properly form an opinion and even then it is not clear whether you know enough.

So how do fellow jref members deal with topics like this?( I don't want to know what you think off global warming, only how you deal with discussing a topic like this.)

Three things - evidence, evidence and evidence. Yes, it seems that everyone has their own "expert" opinion, but most of them are formed from partial information or even misinformation. The evidence is out there and is not too hard to find if you really want to know the truth and not just win an argument. We don't know everything (yet), but we know enough to be fairly sure about some things. In order to debate something you don't have to know the answer, you just need to be interested in an exchange of facts and opinions. Sticking with the global warming example, we can measure temperature, we can measure sea level, we can measure atmospheric composition, we can measure pollution, and a lot of this data is available free on the internet. I don't know it all, but when debating it I can show people some of this data, and they can show me other data that I didn't know about and we both end up closer to the truth. Of course, it can be frustrating sometimes because there are many people that simply deny everything even in the face of facts, but once you realise someone is doing this there is simply no point in debating any further and you can move on to something else.

 

[cgallaga]

On number 2 in particular you have to be subtle. My partner and his siblings are certain they experienced there mother being possessed by a ghost when they were young.

To them this personal evidence of their experience trumps any statistical information about how many hauntings have proved false.

All I can do is gently offer science based possible alternatives and allow them to consider that there may be explanations, that do not require appeals to supernatural.

Who knows if over time this will change their belief. But anything else would be relationship suicide. That is not a palatable option in my case.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

I'm often torn between finding that balance between not alienating the people around me and not compromising my rationality. You know the drill. Basically you want to make it very clear why you disagree but at the same time try to prevent any sort of angry response. I'm also the sort to dwell on the slightest social error on my part for days or even weeks after the fact. I'm pretty sensitive to that sort of thing, leading to my shyness. (On a lighter note, am I the only one that imagines hypothetical conversations and possible responses and outcomes for future use at times when alone?)

Anyway, I have found that the important thing that helps me to steadily improve over time is to never START believing in myself. So long as I have my own self doubts, I can see ways to improve.

 

[Beady]

Debating as a skeptic is not easy. Sometimes it's futile, sometimes it's so unclear what is the truth, that taking a stance is impossible. When other (less informed) people DO take a stance, it's tempting to take the other sides just for the sake of the argument. How do you deal with that?

Actually, it's not difficult at all. I do it in my job all the time.

It's rare that I deny an application because someone doesn't qualify for the benefit they're seeking; it's far more common for me to deny because the claimant has not "proven" their case. The distinction is important, and I believe that, as a skeptic, you should learn the difference and apply it to your skeptical arguments.

Never say that someone is wrong, because you are then making a claim and assuming the burden of proof. You are also setting yourself in direct opposition and attacking them; they will be more interested in defending themselves than their assertion. Instead, take the stance that they have to persuade you (actually, phrase it more like, "OK, I'm listening"), and then tell them they have failed to persuade you "because..." (btw, there's a legal difference between "persuade" and "convince"). This removes most of the potential for conflict, since you're not really arguing against them.

Another reason for doing it this way, is a bit of psychological warfare. If you can get your opponent to buy into the idea that you have to be persuaded, then the two of you are tacitly agreeing that you are sitting in judgment on your opponent, and knowing that you're being judged is more intimidating than knowing you're being opposed.

 

[kellyb]

Sure I do not wish to debate someone on a topic I know little about. Unfortunately when someone starts discussing something (like global warming for example) based on seeing just 1 documentary, I tend to choose the other side. Even though I don't know what the truth is, I can debate them based on the little bit I know.

Well, just admit that you don't really know "the truth". And be open about the fact that you're still in the process of gathering information yourself. You don't have to "win" every debate. That's not what skepticism is about. Skepticism is about getting to the truth, and humility is required every step of the way. Sometimes big fat plausibility issues will become obvious with what the other person is arguing. (this is why skeptics end up dismissing 9/11 conspiracies. The required scenarios are simply not plausible.)

So even though I can discuss something with them, I personally feel like I'm half lying. Why? Because I don't know whether what I'm saying is true. How do you deal with that?

Just admit that you're working it all out in your head with the information you already have. There's no shame in debating in terms like "As I understand this..." and "From what I gather..." and "As far as I can tell...".
Be a hard-a$$ when you know you're correct, but be humble the rest of the time.

Not discussing it? I don't think that's the right course.
Reading more? Sure! That's a good way. Unfortunately Global warming is pretty complicated. I'm not a climatologist. So that means I will not know enough about global warming unless I sacrifice time I need to spend on my study. I'm not prepared to do that.

Then don't fight to win. It sounds like you just don't find the subject all that interesting. That's ok. You can still discuss it. But until you know why you're right, and how it (probably) works, you'll never totally convince yourself, much less anyone else. And that's perfectly fine. When you don't know much about a subject, all you're doing is tossing around ideas, which can be fun. There's nothing wrong with that. Again, you don't have to win every debate.

So how do fellow jref members deal with topics like this?( I don't want to know what you think off global warming, only how you deal with discussing a topic like this.)

Well, I only debate stuff I find interesting. I enjoy learning about that same stuff. Therefore I tend to know quite a bit about the things I debate. Since I personally don't find global warming all that interesting, I only discuss it in an informal, lighthearted way. I explain why my opinion is what it is when it comes up, (and I've got some good points) but I'm aware of the fact that at this point, I'm not able to make an extremely persuasive argument to support my opinion.

It's not a big deal.

 

[ObscureReferenceMan]

I recently had a conversation with someone at work about accupuncture. After letting her know the facts (as I understand them), her response was, "But it works for me". And yes, even after explaining the placebo effect, she still said, "But it works for me". (There's a name for this fallacy, but I can't find it. Basically, it's where we put more value on personal experience than any other data/info.)

I also had a conversation with a VERY intelligent friend, and she mentioned the "people always die in threes" myth. When I said that was not true, and simply a case of confirmation bias (kind of - basically, after the third person dies, you stop counting and reset to zero), she admitted to knowing what confirmation bias was, agreeing that it is "wrong thinking", but that wasn't what she was doing in this case.

*Sigh*

Sometimes, you just can't discuss/debate with the bleevers. I think it's more constructive to talk with the "fence-sitters".

 

[Hokulele]

Several people in this thread have made the point that you shouldn't look at the debate/discussion as something to "win", especially if you are dealing with friends/family members. I have somewhat earned the reputation in our circle of friends as being the "smart" person (not because I am any more intelligent), because I will almost always say, "That's interesting. Let's find out more!" If you couch the discussion in terms of a learning experience for everyone involved, everyone wins. I will give you two recent examples.

One friend of ours has a volleyball court installed in his back yard. His wife is into a bunch of woo stuff, and often brings it up during our weekend games. A few weeks ago, she brought in a chain e-mail she recently received about cell phones and stuff you could and couldn't do with them. Most of the e-mail was bunk. One of the items was indicating that if you locked your keys in the car but you had a button on the key fob that could unloc the doors, you could have someone else with access to your spare fob hold it up to their cell phone as you held your cell phone up to your car, and press the button. I could have gone into the technical explanation of why this couldn't work, but instead said, "Here's my key fob, let's try it!" The actual experience of seeing it not work did far more to debunk this that any discussion could, and we had a lot of fun playing with the cell phones. BTW, as a random aside, we did prove we could call a dog via the speakerphone on my cell phone! Whistling works better than words.

The second example was a technical item in the "Secret" movie people have discussed here. I have read popular works on Quantum Mechanics, but I am certainly no professional physicist. When this topic came up, I explained how I didn't know for sure, but I thought that the point we were discussing was bunk. I suggested that we all see what we could find on this topic (it had something to do with tunneling), and bring it what we could find the next week. That turned out to be a great learning experience for all of us, although we never really came up with any final consensus.

I guess the moral of this post is that you should always make it fun, and focus on shared learning rather than who is "right" and who is "wrong". Some people may still hold to unfounded beliefs, but is can be much more interesting for everyone involved.

 

[autumn1971]

As a father, I now take extra-special delight in the devil's advocate position. I have always been the one to question my group's assertions, often for no other reason than the resulting debate (read: shouting match). Now, instead of the old, intensively intellectual approach, I simply smile and ask "why?" ad nauseam.

 

[Cuddles]

Sure I do not wish to debate someone on a topic I know little about. Unfortunately when someone starts discussing something (like global warming for example) based on seeing just 1 documentary, I tend to choose the other side. Even though I don't know what the truth is, I can debate them based on the little bit I know. So even though I can discuss something with them, I personally feel like I'm half lying. Why? Because I don't know whether what I'm saying is true. How do you deal with that?

Playing Devil's advocate is certainly not lying. I quite often take the opposing view if I am not sure or even if I know I am wrong (OK, so I have a sadistic streak). If someone has a genuinely good argument to make they should be able to make it in the face of someone arguing against them. If an argument only works when it is not challenged then it is no argument at all. If you can't argue about global warming when people agree with you then what chance do you have when they don't? Playing Devil's advocate is a good way to get people to really think about what they are saying and whether they are right or wrong they will almost always learn more than if everyone just agrees with them. As long as you go where the evidence leads and don't just want to win regardless of the facts, everyone wins in the end.