Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Right Way to Debunk
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1 of 148 (439837)
12-10-2007 4:21 PM


A recent comment article in Skeptical Inquirer discussed the difficulties inherent in debunking persistent myths, and it described how debunking myths can actually be counterproductive. It mentioned the following:
  • Research shows that providing correct information to someone who believes otherwise (the example was flu vaccines) will change their belief for only a short while. Within a few days people revert to their prior belief, and even worse, there is a strong tendency to recall the provider of the correct information as actually supporting their incorrect belief.
  • The number of Arabs who do not believe Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks is soaring. The Bush administration runs web sites in seven languages to counter this, but apparently the more we combat the belief the more widely it spreads.
  • Hearing the same thing over and over again convinces people it is true. The brain apparently is not very discriminating about the quality of the source or the number of sources. An unreliable source saying the same thing over and over and over again is very effective. Apparently people are not very good at remembering how they learned something.
  • A denial like "I did not harass her" succeeds only in more firmly associating the person with harassment in people's minds.
The article concludes:
Shankar Vedantam in Skeptical Inquirer writes:
Mayo (Ruth Mayo, a cognitive social psychologist at Hebrew University in Jeruasalem) found that rather than deny a false claim, it is better to make a completely new assertion that makes no reference to the original myth. Rather than say, as Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) recently did during a marathon congressional debate, that "Saddam Hussein did not attack the United States; Osama bin Laden did," Mayo says it would be better to say something like, "Osama bin Laden was the only person responsible for the September 11 attacks" - and not mention Hussein at all.
EvC Forum attracts a great many creationists who declare their views, then ignore the rebuttals and instead just restate their views. Over and over again. Attempts to get them to go beyond restatements of their initial position are not often successful. Detailed dissections of their position are just met with more redeclarations.
I wonder if perhaps a better approach might be to just plainly state the correct information without detail or elaboration. For example, if such a debater were to declare, "Secular science wants to hide the controversy from our children," the appropriate and simple reply would be, "There is near universal acceptance of evolution by scientists, and we teach what scientists believe." If and when the debater moves beyond simple restatements of their position then others could move the debate forward with him, but as long as he remains stuck in parrot mode, so could everyone else.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Silent H, posted 12-10-2007 6:44 PM Percy has replied
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 12-10-2007 7:26 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 12-10-2007 8:03 PM Percy has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 2 of 148 (439881)
12-10-2007 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
12-10-2007 4:21 PM


Actually I think that tactic has some merit, however...
"There is near universal acceptance of evolution by scientists, and we teach what scientists believe."
An opponent could point out that near universal, means that it is not universal, which logically means some scientists do not accept evolution. And if we are supposed to teach what scientists believe, shouldn't that include all of them?
Then they'd go on about how science is not stagnant, should not be, as once controversial theories go on to become near universal beliefs in the future.
I think the tactic you mention works to some degree to rob power from wholly fallacious comments, or rhetorical tactics to make the incredible seem credible, but wherever there is admitted wiggle room for error true believers (of any belief system) will latch on.
Edited by Silent H, : wherever

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 12-10-2007 4:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 12-10-2007 7:06 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3 of 148 (439886)
12-10-2007 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Silent H
12-10-2007 6:44 PM


I think that'd be great if the discussion took that route. The proposal only applies to those who are stuck in a rut repeating themselves while ignoring rebuttals.
Another example: A creationist keeps saying, "More and more scientists are recognizing the bankruptcy of evolution and are accepting the truth of creation." Naturally the repetitions won't be worded identically, and the repetitions wouldn't necessarily be in consecutive posts and could be interspersed with other facets of the discussion, but if he won't drop into discussion mode on this point then detailed repeated rebuttals of his position are actually counterproductive because they, apparently according to the research, only indicate to people that something must be rotten in Denmark.
The correct response would therefore be, "Almost all scientists accept evolution," with no acknowledgment or even hint of the details of the argument from the other side.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Silent H, posted 12-10-2007 6:44 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by bluegenes, posted 12-10-2007 7:42 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 53 by Buzsaw, posted 12-15-2007 12:23 AM Percy has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 148 (439892)
12-10-2007 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
12-10-2007 4:21 PM


I wonder if perhaps a better approach might be to just plainly state the correct information without detail or elaboration.
Well, except that this is supposed to be a debate board, and you kind of have to talk about the opponent's points if you are going to debate her.

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 12-10-2007 4:21 PM Percy has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 5 of 148 (439897)
12-10-2007 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
12-10-2007 7:06 PM


Percy writes:
The correct response would therefore be, "Almost all scientists accept evolution," with no acknowledgment or even hint of the details of the argument from the other side.
I prefer "all thinking scientists accept evolution".
It's provocative, but true. Faith is the enemy of thought, and creationism is faith based.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 12-10-2007 7:06 PM Percy has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 6 of 148 (439900)
12-10-2007 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
12-10-2007 4:21 PM


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this suggestion pretty much come straight out of The Creationist Guide To Win Debates?

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 12-10-2007 4:21 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Chiroptera, posted 12-10-2007 8:11 PM Taz has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 148 (439904)
12-10-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taz
12-10-2007 8:03 PM


Ha!
That just occurred to me 2 seconds before I read your post.
When a creationist does what Percy suggests, she is accused of not addressing the points made against her.

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 12-10-2007 8:03 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 12-10-2007 8:36 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 8 of 148 (439911)
12-10-2007 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Chiroptera
12-10-2007 8:11 PM


Re: Ha!
The research says that rebuttals made within the context of the accusation fail. The famous example is, "Are you still beating your wife?" The knee-jerk response ("NO!") loses outright, while the reply, "I've been head-over-heels in love with my wife for over 40 years," wins.
Think of how poorly the alternative has been working here. A creationist can't get past his initial statement, maybe for example this time it's, "Scientists are biased against ID and won't allow the research to be published," so you go to the moderation thread and request intervention and a moderator steps in and makes several requests to the creationist to address the rebuttals, which doesn't happen, so the creationist gets suspended several times, and now he's sprinkling charges of discrimination throughout his posts, and he's still calling scientists biased, and it all looks pretty bad.
A simple statement of, "Scientific journals will always publish good science," and just leaving it at that unless and until the creationist starts supporting his initial assertion, I think might work much better.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Chiroptera, posted 12-10-2007 8:11 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 12-10-2007 9:01 PM Percy has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 9 of 148 (439914)
12-10-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
12-10-2007 8:36 PM


Re: Ha!
Although I think a simple statement might be made to counter the example claim by a creo, I'm not certain the following is good...
A simple statement of, "Scientific journals will always publish good science,"
With the number of scientists complaining of peer review, and indeed I believe you and I have marveled at the same articles which have made it into journals, the above is a rather brazen and false assertion.
Perhaps a more direct response, might be to ask essentially what I've been trying to get since I've been here... What research won't they allow to be published?
{AbE: Maybe this would be a better choice...
"Strong theories with solid evidence have historically convinced the majority of scientists of their utility."}
Edited by Silent H, : AbE

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 12-10-2007 8:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 12-11-2007 8:59 AM Silent H has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 10 of 148 (440012)
12-11-2007 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Silent H
12-10-2007 9:01 PM


Re: Ha!
Silent H writes:
Perhaps a more direct response, might be to ask essentially what I've been trying to get since I've been here... What research won't they allow to be published?
Sure, that would be the first question. My suggestion is for what to do after you've asked that question 4 or 5 different ways and the creationist is still just repeating his initial claim.
What happens is that the more and more you attempt to get the creationist to engage the discussion, the more and more you slip into his context, and then all is lost and lurkers are left asking, "Why the heck won't scientists let creationists publish their research?"
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 12-10-2007 9:01 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 12-11-2007 4:11 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 12 by Kitsune, posted 12-11-2007 4:29 PM Percy has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 11 of 148 (440124)
12-11-2007 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Percy
12-11-2007 8:59 AM


Re: Ha!
Not sure if you caught my AbE. I realized afterward that my question would lead to the dilemma you just outlined. Let me retool the AbE again, this time against the question you posed here...
Q: "Why the heck won't scientists let creationists publish their research?"
A: Controversial research and theories have historically gained broader publication and acceptance as their practical predictive power is proven with a growing body of evidence.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 12-11-2007 8:59 AM Percy has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 12 of 148 (440133)
12-11-2007 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Percy
12-11-2007 8:59 AM


Re: Ha!
Try addressing the actual evidence Percy. Some people are mistrustful of the scientific establishment. Some are skeptical about studies and what gets published in scientific journals. (You missed me I bet LOL.) The creationists I've been debating with all think science itself is a massive conspiracy and that scientists are all liars. You start to run out of logical tactics you can use with people who are thinking that way.
Why am I an evolutionist when you know I've got views on other things called woo-woo here? Because I look at radiometric dates for rocks. I look at the fossil record. The geological column. Those are things I can see for myself -- in museums, and outside. Mountains of hard evidence. Cold, hard, undeniable facts. Maybe instead of debating about what gets published in journals and which scientists agree or disagree, you can try to get back to basic facts. I can't promise this will work with creationists either but it's worth a go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 12-11-2007 8:59 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Jon, posted 12-11-2007 7:11 PM Kitsune has replied
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 12-11-2007 10:07 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 148 (440182)
12-11-2007 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Kitsune
12-11-2007 4:29 PM


Getting to the Source
WELCOME BACK! We did miss you!
Your suggestion is a good one. The only problem, however, is that the evidence is not 'cold, hard'. It requires interpretations which revolve around logic ('all A are B' type stuff, to be sure). This puts the evidence in an interesting position:
Interpreted logically, it says "evo evo evo".
Interpreted Biblically, it says "what I want".
The problem is essentially with getting people (Creos) to accept the very foundations of logic itself. It is not easy to do, either. We have members who plainly refuse to apply logic to anything mentioned in the Bible (Creation, Flood, etc.); others refuse to apply logic to anything that involves beliefs (the nature of God, etc.).
Why is this so hard for them to do? First, they hold beliefs about the world that bring them to conclude their god is a weakling. They think that without a literal Genesis (for example) that little fairy tale queen god of theirs will just up and vanish”POOF! Second, they think that science and God are somehow completely opposed to one another. Many atheists don't help this one, either; they send off messages telling people that science has disproven God and everything. Creo community leaders love this, of course, because if accepting something as simple as the Neanderthal fossil in that evo book means giving up their god, who would ever accept that!
The approach, in my opinion, must come in three steps:
  1. Make people realise that if God”the Real God, the One True God”exists, He/She/It/They exists no matter what is true of the rest of the world/universe.
  2. If 1 is the case, then there are no assumptions, i.e., given truths, that can be made about the nature of reality, since it can be anything without affecting God.
  3. If there are no given truths, then the only way to get the truth is to go out and look for it”logically, of course.
Here at EvC, it can be easy to get into the trap of thinking the opposing side is arguing 'bad science'. Is it bad? Sure. But, we must realise that for these people it is not about doing science one way versus doing science another way. It is about whether or not God (or their version if Him/Her/It/Them) exists. It is about whether or not they will be given eternal life, whether or not there will be someone there to walk with them through the "valley of the shadow of death". For them, it is not even theology. They have convinced themselves of one reality. They have convinced themselves that anything from a different reality is automatically threatening to their current reality.
Now, you must hand it to them, the reality they've created for themselves is pretty appealing. If such a reality were actually true, wouldn't you do anything you could to hang on to it? (Eternal life? Someone to look after you?) OF COURSE YOU WOULD!! And if one thing you see as threatening that reality is your professor's acceptance of evolution, wouldn't you do anything to get rid of that threat? If one thing you see as threatening that reality is the human evolution book in the library, wouldn't you do anything to get rid of that threat?
Don't you think it would be best to rst convince folk that there is no threat? Once they realise that, the doors are wide open to what they can learn and what they can think.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : I KNEW that comma was supposed to be there!
Edited by Jon, : Conditional

Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Kitsune, posted 12-11-2007 4:29 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Kitsune, posted 12-12-2007 3:17 AM Jon has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 14 of 148 (440209)
12-11-2007 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Kitsune
12-11-2007 4:29 PM


Re: Ha!
LindaLou writes:
Try addressing the actual evidence Percy.
Suggestions along these lines have been made a couple times already in this thread, and my response will be very similar. The evidence is a great starting point. My suggestion is for what to do after you've presented evidence for 4 or 5 posts and the creationist is still just repeating his initial claim.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Kitsune, posted 12-11-2007 4:29 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 15 of 148 (440223)
12-12-2007 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jon
12-11-2007 7:11 PM


Re: Getting to the Source
Very good points Jon. They explain a lot. BTW I'm still mainly lurking here and getting info so don't expect more entertaining debates with me about woo-woo.
So in order to get the creos to move forward in their arguments, we help them to understand that there is no threat to their beliefs from evolution. But is that strictly true? It requires them to believe that much in the Bible is metaphorical, and that the humans who wrote the Bible could have made errors. Most Christians take what they see as the universal truths from the Bible and don't worry so much about the rest. But if you start to think deeply about it, you may begin to wonder why the Bible is even needed when those universal truths can also be found in other places, and why "the rest" is there in the Bible.
Speaking for myself, when I finally got the chance to learn about other religions and mythologies in college, I suddenly realised that I was narrowing my world view by believing what the Bible told me, and that it was written by humans in an ancient culture whose needs it suited at the time. If I'd never been educated about what other people in the world believe then I might well have carried on being a devout Catholic.
So maybe what I'm saying is that there is no threat as long as you don't probe too deeply into things. Otherwise, your faith might get blown out of the water. I'm delighted with what happened to me personally, but I think a lot of people would find themselves in the sort of spiritual crisis that Glenn Morton faced. He was only able to remedy this for himself by tweaking some of his literal interpretations of the Bible and I'm not sure how satisfied he is with that.
Also, don't forget that creos who are members of a congregation are not going to want to risk being ostracised by their flock.
In the face of all this, what else do you do when debators have got you in a corner? Hold onto your lifeline and tell everyone else they're lying.
I think Phat would be a good person to contribute here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jon, posted 12-11-2007 7:11 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by dwise1, posted 12-12-2007 11:59 AM Kitsune has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024