Agreeing with the woo-woos

[joeybernard]

I'm an atheist Druid, so I tend to hang out with people who happen to buy into almost every new-age mumbo-jumbo that comes along. I'm trying a new technique with some of them. I start off by agreeing with them. With one person, I said "Let's assume that homeopathy works." Then I take them through to the logical conclusion. In this particular case, I asked them why my tap water wasn't homeopathic. This annoyed them to no end because it forced them to try and rationalize their belief, and I wasn't letting them get away with handwaving "It just isn't!". I don't think I changed their mind, but I do know that I did change the minds of at least a few other people who were involved in the conversation. And because I stayed respectful and simply asked to be educated in the ways of the woo-woos, many of them seemed more amenable to listening to my questions.

I'm just wondering if any others have used this technique before? If you have, have you had any success?

[Kochanski]

I think you have a good plan there. If you start out laughing at them or telling them the stuff is nonsense, you will just get them to shut their minds completely. They won't want to hear what you say and no one else around will be at all sympathetic to you either.

You are not ever likely to change the mind of a true believer, they have too much invested in their beliefs but if you can get others who are not pulled in to take a rational approach and to think about things then you have accomplished something.

I have attempted the same in minor ways at times. If you can at least plant a seed of doubt that gets them to look their beliefs a bit more closely you have achieved a lot.

Most importantly, you need to use whatever way you are most comfortable with, if you are sincere and honest and open, you will at least have their respect, even if you do nothing to change their minds.

[tsg]

I'll have to do some digging, but I think it was Plato that made use of this tactic. He would feign ignorance in a subject, asking prodding questions into the claims of the person presenting them until they argued themselves into a corner.

[Admiral]

This is generally known as the Socratic Method. Socrates agreed with the people he debated, then he kept going on a chain of logic until he reached a point where his opponent's belief was shown to be ridiculous.

Of course, he got so good at it that the woos of the time ended up sentencing him to death. So I doubt that the solution is necessarily diplomatic.

[Admiral]

Yeah, tsg, you were thinking of Socrates, Plato's mentor.

[Orphia Nay]

Yes, Socratic method - you beat me to it, Admiral. :)

It's rewarding, but often difficult. Sometimes people can take objective statements of fact as personal insults, because deep down they can sense what you're getting at.

In forums, I often find that once you get near to debunking their claim, they stop posting, so it's hard to tell the measure of success.

More often, their conversation deteriorates (even if you only post polite, pertinent questions) into ad hominems and changes of topic.

Still, small successes make it worthwhile, and hopefully practice makes perfect. It probably works better in person where evasion is more difficult, and where they can see you are not laughing at them or being unkind.

[tsg]

Yeah, tsg, you were thinking of Socrates, Plato's mentor.

That would be it. I knew it was one of the three.

[Elind]

I'm an atheist Druid

Could you please explain. What is that?

[SirPhilip]

I'm just wondering if any others have used this technique before? If you have, have you had any success? It's rather easy to get the upper hand, or if not, to make the person at least bow out. People, no matter how much they buy into dubious ideas, can't turn off their logical compass. But those who suspend it, I generally group into two catagories:

1) Emotional. These people range from religious moderates to practicing esoteric to philosophical types. Typically they have a heartfelt humanistic reasoning behind their outlook, and tend to be mature and curious about what is the right way to live.

2) Egotistic. They wear their beliefs as a fashion statement, and use it to regulate their sense of self-worth and status. As their ingrained sense of logic goes against this, it requires them to use other people as feedback mechanisms to reaffirm it.

As I am in the first catagory myself and I have my own beliefs about human destiny, if I encounter someone of like-motive but differing beliefs, I find a common ground or cease discussion. If I encounter someone who thinks basing a personal outlook on something besides evidence is wrongheaded, I simply explain it as flavored wishful thinking. The second type is a different story. It's best to ignore them unless you want to offend them. The most effective way I've found is avoid the emotional cut-off switch. This occurs if you challange the subject, and by extension, their self-worth/esteem. To win, avoiding elicting the defensive/emotional reponse using coersion then smile when they realize they just refuted themselves. A key, as you mentioned, is to make them believe you agree with them, or at least fundamentally feel the same way.

[SirPhilip]

Still, small successes make it worthwhile, and hopefully practice makes perfect. It probably works better in person where evasion is more difficult, and where they can see you are not laughing at them or being unkind.It is difficult because often the rational person addresses the subject, thinking the person is being willfully ignorant - not the personality making the claim. In a proper debate, ad hominems are a penalty. Why? Because the person has nothing to do with the subject. When dealing with a woo, this is reversed. As the topic is likely imaginary, highly improbable or unprovable, the person is the subject of debate.

[sophia8]

JB, I'll have to try out your tactic. Being a pagan, I have lots of friends with all sorts of weird beliefs. My usual tactics of explaing that something is simply impossible ("But there aren't 13 strands in DNA!!") have so far only resulted in me being dismissed as "that sad skeptic".
So, next time, I'll say something like "Cool! What sort of magnifying equipment do they use to see these 13 strands? Must be pretty powerful!".

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes Sophia, we could innocently ask: Do you mean 13 strands of DNA, 13 chromosomes, 13 pairs of chromosomes, or chromosomes with 13 strands? What assay did they use?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If anyone ever catches you using this Socratic method, they are going to brand you as the most condescending jerk ever to grace the planet.

~~ Paul

[joeybernard]

Elind, modern Druidry is more of a philosophy then a religion. So it is more akin to Buddhism or philosophical Taoism then to Wicca. As such, your religious inclinations (or lack thereof) are seen as complementary to the philosophical outlook of Druidry. Of course I'm speaking of the Revivalist branch of Druidry. There is a newer form of neo-pagan Druidry that has grown up in the last 40 years or so in the US. They tend to see Druidry as their religion.

Paul, I really am sincere when I question these people. If what they say is true, then this is a huge advancement in my understanding of the way the world works. It's just that I haven't yet found any of this kind of stuff that actually works. But I'm still looking. You don't advance unless you go to the fringe of knowledge. The trick is to keep yourself from going off a cliff into nothingness.

[tsg]

If anyone ever catches you using this Socratic method, they are going to brand you as the most condescending jerk ever to grace the planet.

And yet I'm not the slightest bit discouraged....

[alfaniner]

By the way, just so you can't say nobody ever told you...

Hemlock is poison.

[Jeff Corey]

Not if you dilute it to 12C.

[Jono]

This is generally known as the Socratic Method. Socrates agreed with the people he debated, then he kept going on a chain of logic until he reached a point where his opponent's belief was shown to be ridiculous.

Of course, he got so good at it that the woos of the time ended up sentencing him to death. So I doubt that the solution is necessarily diplomatic.

Indeed. Hence the saying that if you make people think they are thinking, they will love you for it... but if you make people really think, they will hate you for it.

[Elind]

Elind, modern Druidry is more of a philosophy then a religion. So it is more akin to Buddhism or philosophical Taoism then to Wicca. As such, your religious inclinations (or lack thereof) are seen as complementary to the philosophical outlook of Druidry. Of course I'm speaking of the Revivalist branch of Druidry. There is a newer form of neo-pagan Druidry that has grown up in the last 40 years or so in the US. They tend to see Druidry as their religion.

Well, I did a quick search and read a few "principles". Sounds to me like a mishmash (no offense intended) of humanism, unitarianism, newageism, with a heavy dose of ritualism.

I suppose that can be a useful tool for some, in the line of meditation, but I have to say it sounds a lot like a solution in search of a problem.

You know; a born again christian who becomes an aetheist, but misses the social togetherness of the church so much that he starts an "aetheist" social group disguised as an ancient culture that can then make up new rituals to give that warm and fuzzy feeling of his youth, without the intellectual contradictions of a church and inconvenient deity critizing everything.

:(

On the other hand that may be what we do here. There's always Darat looking over our shoulder and then Randi and Linda and........... hmmm

[SirPhilip]

Well, I did a quick search and read a few "principles". Sounds to me like a mishmash (no offense intended) of humanism, unitarianism, newageism, with a heavy dose of ritualism. I think a lot of the enjoyment of modern practices like Druidism (and neopaganism in general) is a cultural experience, even as a philosophy - not for any intrinsic worth. Especially when it is part of your ancestors' history.

[Elind]

I think a lot of the enjoyment of modern practices like Druidism (and neopaganism in general) is a cultural experience, even as a philosophy - not for any intrinsic worth. Especially when it is part of your ancestors' history.

Well I'm all for enjoying ancestral history; food and drink in particular. But, I think just about all that is known of "Druids" is that they probably built some impressive monuments. The rest is imagination, which I guess makes them prime candidates for fantasy games.