If you are explaining you are losing

[IllegalArgument]

Not sure if this is the right forum, since this topic could be in multiple places.

There was a very interesting paper giving on Sunday by David Schlosser about how to fight creationists and IDers in the political arena.

One key point he hammered on was, that if you are explaining science you are losing, note I said in the political arena. He said that best way to debate was to show where evolutionary was used in other places outside of biology and how evolution is based on the scientific method and force the opposition into the position of trying to explain why the scientific method doesn't work.

Anyone else who heard that paper want to comment?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by IllegalArgument
Not sure if this is the right forum, since this topic could be in multiple places.

There was a very interesting paper giving on Sunday by David Schlosser about how to fight creationists and IDers in the political arena.

One key point he hammered on was, that if you are explaining science you are losing, note I said in the political arena. He said that best way to debate was to show where evolutionary was used in other places outside of biology and how evolution is based on the scientific method and force the opposition into the position of trying to explain why the scientific method doesn't work.

Anyone else who heard that paper want to comment?
Although I agree and often use the argument that the utility of science is its proof, I do not agree that arguing (or debating, as I prefer to call it) is pointless. A well-crafted argument can leave the opponent either speechless or reduced to repeating slogans, which I believe influences rational people.

One thing I have discovered about debates/arguments is that they have a delayed effect. Only rarely will a person consider a different point of view while the debate is ongoing but often a planted seed will take root, sometimes unperceived by the person. I have seen people with whom I have debated, paraphrase my own statements back to me in later debates, indicating that they were in fact listening. To me, that is victory, even if I didn't convince them during the debate.

Oh yeah, I should mention that I have been on the other side a few times too. One thing I try to do as a debater is to acknowledge good points made by my opposition. It is sometimes emotionally difficult to do so.

[fishbob]

One key point he hammered on was, that if you are explaining science you are losing,
I can't find your referenced paper, but many of the creationist and ID arguments rely on attacking evolution. So far, I have found NONE of these attacks to be based on real data or valid interpretations of real data. Talkorigens has a good library of discussions and refutations of the typical creationist points.

Discovery Institute, Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and other creationist websites post various bogus arguments that many creationists seem to parrot without understanding.

My advice - where you don't have to explain science:
Learn what their typical argument include.
Learn what the gaping holes in these arguments are.
Point out the fallacies in their arguments in simple, logical terms.

This is much easier to do on an internet forum than in person. Best of luck.

[IllegalArgument]

Problem I believe the speaker was pointing out, is while you are explaining the holes in thier argument. The people you are trying to reach, eyes glaze over. He was suggesting using different tactics, point out the benefits of evolutionary theory in thing other than biology and it's basis in the scientific method. Force the opposition into the "explaining" mode of how the scientific method is wrong.

Richard Dawkins questioned the speaker about this for a few minutes, it seems counter to what I think most people would think is the proper way to go about this. Though Dawkins said nowadays he refuses to formally debate IDers, because he thinks it gives them to much validatity to be seem to the same stage as him.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by IllegalArgument


Problem I believe the speaker was pointing out, is while you are explaining the holes in thier argument. The people you are trying to reach, eyes glaze over. He was suggesting using different tactics, point out the benefits of evolutionary theory in thing other than biology and it's basis in the scientific method. Force the opposition into the "explaining" mode of how the scientific method is wrong.




Seems like quite a good tactic as you are forcing the opposition away from what is quite possibly a well rehearsed position in which "you", the sceptic may be at a disadvantage and instead requiring them to explain their ( usually self contradictory ) world view.

[CBL4]

I agree we are losing the battle if we have to argue over details.
My letter-to-the-editor tactic is two-fold simple arguments.

First I mention all the other subjects that would be invalidated for Creationism to be true - cosmology (age of universe), geology (age of earth), physics (age of rocks, speed of light), history, linguistics, etc. I attempt to show that creationism is not about one issue in one subject but an attack on all of science and history. It seems to make some people think a little bit about the utter stupidity of creationism.

My second tactic is to mention that bugs and diseases clearly evolve in the face of pesticides and antibiotics. (This is a new thought for some people!) I then mention that since the earth is billions of years old (not really a controversial subject for most people) and then ask what that means could happen in a billion years.

This combination that seems to work for a lot of moderately intelligent people who are not zealots.

For intelligent zealots, I show them the ICR pamphlet on the second law of thermodynamics. They read it and agree. I then ask them if the 2nd law applies in an open system which is receiving energy from the outside. They agree it does not and that the earth is an open system which recieves energy from the sun. I then ask why the ICR publishes such nonsense that I can clearly rebut in less than a minute. This seemed to stun one electrical engineer creationist. I am not sure whether it changed to him but it was an eye opener.

CBL

[Phil]

I agreed completely with Schlosser. I think in the political arena, explaining science to creationists and IDers is not going to be of any benefit to resolving any issue. It might very well simply consume time and energy, as even politically active believers have that need to believe, and the best explanations in the world won't change their minds.

I also think that Dawkins missed the point, at first, that Schlosser was speaking primarily about a political issue. Dawkins seemed quite put off for a moment that Schlosser would suggest that any explaining or debate would be worthless, especially after he, Dawkins, has spent his life explaining science.

Well, of course we need to explain science, and there needs to be thoughtful, open debate. And I think Dawkins realized about halfway through his questioning that Schlosser had not meant to say otherwise. He just meant that where there is a need to address political issues where one opposing party is strictly "non-science", perhaps there are other ways to address the argument than trying to explain everything. And in my opinion he gave some very good examples in that vein.