A philosopher’s 350-year-old trick to get people to change

[Wootah]

I felt we might all benefit from this article

https://qz.com/778767/to-tell-someone-t ... yre-right/

[Neatras]

I'd be more inclined to find this convincing if my experience in the science subforum didn't run contrary to this.

More often than not, when a creationist approaches and tries to take a swing at the theory of evolution, they come prepackaged with a false notion of the "other side" and their motivation/reasoning. This is mostly because they've insulated themselves with the apologetics of other creationists and so readily accuse scientists of having poor character or an "anti-God bias."

It's when they declare themselves to be knowledgeable of the opposition when they are grossly misinformed that this "trick" breaks down. Dunning-Kruger effects and all that. A belief of superiority grounded in scientific illiteracy will end up a trying experience for all involved.

Part of science is explaining what the science actually says, and providing the supporting evidence of that. But those who intentionally misrepresent science add several additional steps of correction, while also providing mental barriers to said correction.

[bluethread]

I'd be more inclined to find this convincing if my experience in the science subforum didn't run contrary to this.

More often than not, when a creationist approaches and tries to take a swing at the theory of evolution, they come prepackaged with a false notion of the "other side" and their motivation/reasoning. This is mostly because they've insulated themselves with the apologetics of other creationists and so readily accuse scientists of having poor character or an "anti-God bias."

It's when they declare themselves to be knowledgeable of the opposition when they are grossly misinformed that this "trick" breaks down. Dunning-Kruger effects and all that. A belief of superiority grounded in scientific illiteracy will end up a trying experience for all involved.

Part of science is explaining what the science actually says, and providing the supporting evidence of that. But those who intentionally misrepresent science add several additional steps of correction, while also providing mental barriers to said correction.

Your point is well taken. I see the same in the C&A forum. More often than not, when a detractor approaches and tries to take a swing at the biblical theism, they come prepackaged with a false notion of the "other side" and their motivation/reasoning. Part of theology is explaining what the Scriptures actually say, and providing the supporting evidence of that. But those who intentionally misrepresent the Scriptures add several additional steps of correction, while also providing mental barriers to said correction.

Do you see what I did there? That is the point of the OP.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 3 by bluethread]

The thing is, both our positions can be correct, and can run contrary to the point in the OP. And we can back this up with evidence. I can demonstrate people in the science subforum misrepresenting scientists or accusing them of having motivations different than what they actually are.

You can rhetorically circle around and act like I'm just reinforcing the OP's point, but you would have to demonstrate that what I'm saying is based more on assumptions about others than facts demonstrated by those very people. Facts I can provide, at your request.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 3 by bluethread]

The thing is, both our positions can be correct, and can run contrary to the point in the OP. And we can back this up with evidence. I can demonstrate people in the science subforum misrepresenting scientists or accusing them of having motivations different than what they actually are.

You can rhetorically circle around and act like I'm just reinforcing the OP's point, but you would have to demonstrate that what I'm saying is based more on assumptions about others than facts demonstrated by those very people. Facts I can provide, at your request.

You are to be praised for demonstrating one of the problems with the OP, i.e. the unwillingness of the opponent to return the favor. Rather, than acknowledging my complaint, you presume yourself to be doing something that I do not do and proclaim yourself superior. Though we are looking at rhetorical presentation here and I personally tend to look at substance over rhetoric, the casual reader might take offence at this and be resistant to your argument on those grounds. Also, though I can also demonstrate people in the C&A subforum misrepresenting the Scriptures or accusing them of having contexts different than what they actually are, the point of the OP is that direct accusation is more likely to create offense and resistance to one's arguments. One the other hand, as the OP points out, my argument is likely to be more persuasive, due to it's being supportive of, rather than resistant to, your points.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 5 by bluethread]

Let's analyze my post. My first sentence is an admission that both of our original posts are valid. The next is an enthusiastic claim that we can substantiate both our sides. I then specified what parts of my claim I could substantiate.

I then anticipated (correctly) that you would take the opportunity to try and use the OP's argument to attack my post (which, you have not addressed the substance of). I pointed out a logical counter to my position, as well as my attempt at a preemptive refutation.

Why then, do you assume I have some kind of superiority complex against you? I have not warranted this kind of attitude with my posts. You made assumptions about my character, refused to address my arguments as presented, and prescribed a narrative to it that puts you in a favorable light.

Please be more fair to me.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 5 by bluethread]

Let's analyze my post. My first sentence is an admission that both of our original posts are valid. The next is an enthusiastic claim that we can substantiate both our sides. I then specified what parts of my claim I could substantiate.

I then anticipated (correctly) that you would take the opportunity to try and use the OP's argument to attack my post (which, you have not addressed the substance of). I pointed out a logical counter to my position, as well as my attempt at a preemptive refutation.

You have made some good points. You did state that one of the points we both made is correct AND added that this can run contrary to the OP. Including me in with a compliment of yourself and the possibility that what we agree on supports opposition of the OP could be seen as a compliment to me. I do admit that this is more attractive than simply saying that my recognition of that shared point has no effect on the acceptability of may views. Also, including yourself in the added requirement that one's views should be substantiated, does make that addition appear less aggressive. However, your anticipation that I would say that you are reinforcing the OP's point due to assumption rather than fact kind of negates that shared compliment.

The fact is that I did not say that you reinforced the OP, but that you noticed one of the problems with the OP's rhetorical tactic, i.e. the respondent might not respond with a direct in kind compliment that precedes a suggestion of an alternative viewpoint. Now, I can see where you might have not seen that as a direct compliment, which points to another possible problem with the OP's rhetorical tactic. That being that the recipient of the compliment might not view it as a compliment, which you might believe I also exemplified in my response to you.

Why then, do you assume I have some kind of superiority complex against you? I have not warranted this kind of attitude with my posts. You made assumptions about my character, refused to address my arguments as presented, and prescribed a narrative to it that puts you in a favorable light.

Please be more fair to me.

Very good, you now present yet a third and fourth problem with the OP's rhetorical tactic. Assumption and personalization of an observation. This might be do to a misstatement or a misunderstanding. I must admit that I did misstate the case and may have misunderstood your statement. Rather than saying, "proclaim yourself superior", I should have said "make your position appear superior". On your part, you took my observation to mean that you had some kind of complex. Even if the way I stated it were proper, a single incident does not equate to a complex. I do not think you have a complex, but merely noted that your anticipation made it appear to me that you were noting that my observations were not based on facts. This latter was an assumption on my part.

It appears that we are making great progress in identifying problems with the OP's tactic, though I do think that in the main it is a very effective approach.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 7 by bluethread]

I was at odds with myself over the day because I couldn't, for the life of me, figure out what had caused what I inappropriately interpreted as an emotionally aggravated post from you. It's nice to have the explanation given in a neutral and technical perspective, and at least put an end to my imagined transgressions.

I appreciate the points you've made, I appreciate you going the extra mile and pointing out how your post could have been construed in a drastically polarizing direction (I should have done the same for my self-analysis, but attempting to use a neutral, technical tone is still something I have to get used to, along with the emotional effects it will have despite its poorly illustrated intent).

Attempting to predict a response is a failure of mine, and one I feel is an effective means of argumentation, but only if I can actually address a real argument and not put words in my opponent's mouth.

I will make no expectations of your character or your conduct, and will instead resort to a receptive tone which I hope is conveyed effectively, and I hope progresses toward a productive goal.

If possible, I'd like to discuss how the OP might be feasible as a tactic in discussions utilizing strawmen. The existence of strawmen is what I originally felt caused the Pascalian (for lack of a better descriptive term) technique, which is for introducing retrospective consideration of the opponent's side, to be ineffective. Because a strawman is, practically by definition, divorced from reality and therefore has no correct side, except to confirm bias.

In such a manner, with science or Scripture, what might be a method of fixing the dilemma of a strawman incorrectly framing the argument for both sides? Is this method able to utilize the OP's introduction of Pascal's technique? The strawman doesn't lead to the opponent's argument, it leads in a different direction entirely that is engineered to "end" in an absurdity that the user rejects. And because the absurdity doesn't actually exist (unless the real argument itself is absurd), it doesn't actually serve to reinforce the user's position; it merely presents the illusion that it does, reinforcing confirmation bias. But attempting to correct the strawman can still cause the user to progress down that predefined path anyway, so getting them to see the opponent's argument becomes more difficult with time.

[bluethread]

If possible, I'd like to discuss how the OP might be feasible as a tactic in discussions utilizing strawmen. The existence of strawmen is what I originally felt caused the Pascalian (for lack of a better descriptive term) technique, which is for introducing retrospective consideration of the opponent's side, to be ineffective. Because a strawman is, practically by definition, divorced from reality and therefore has no correct side, except to confirm bias.

OK, let's examine that. You may present a specific example if you like, but I think the concept speaks for itself. I would think, when presented with a straw man argument, one could acknowledge the connection one might make that would give rise to the straw man. Then, one could explain that such is not the case, or at least that one does not view that as the case. One could then provide details of the particular case that eliminate the straw man from the discussion. In this way, one has used the Pascal method; finding merit in what ones opponent said, reinforcing one's own position, and returning the discussion back to the desired track.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I'd be more inclined to find this convincing if my experience in the science subforum didn't run contrary to this.

More often than not, when a creationist approaches and tries to take a swing at the theory of evolution, they come prepackaged with a false notion of the "other side" and their motivation/reasoning. This is mostly because they've insulated themselves with the apologetics of other creationists and so readily accuse scientists of having poor character or an "anti-God bias."

It's when they declare themselves to be knowledgeable of the opposition when they are grossly misinformed that this "trick" breaks down. Dunning-Kruger effects and all that. A belief of superiority grounded in scientific illiteracy will end up a trying experience for all involved.

Part of science is explaining what the science actually says, and providing the supporting evidence of that. But those who intentionally misrepresent science add several additional steps of correction, while also providing mental barriers to said correction.

Your point is well taken. I see the same in the C&A forum. More often than not, when a detractor approaches and tries to take a swing at the biblical theism, they come prepackaged with a false notion of the "other side" and their motivation/reasoning. Part of theology is explaining what the Scriptures actually say, and providing the supporting evidence of that. But those who intentionally misrepresent the Scriptures add several additional steps of correction, while also providing mental barriers to said correction.

Do you see what I did there? That is the point of the OP.

I heavily rely on scripture in formulating my arguments. Far from "prepackaging" my arguments, I draw my arguments from a position of what the words of scripture actually say, and allow my opponents to explain why what the words of scripture actually say, is not what the words actually mean.