Hal Bidlack's Lament

[Brown]

I found myself moved by Hal Bidlack's observation in the current commentary:Thus my ongoing battle with conspiracy theory. Very frustrating, and ultimately unwinnable due to the non-falsifiable nature of the claim. And these are not silly or stupid people. In my 15 years of teaching at the Academy, I greatly enjoyed my interaction with these future leaders of the military. But it was disquieting to learn first hand what you have known for a very long time: very smart people are capable of remarkable self delusion. (Emphasis mine.)One important part of this observation is, I think, not to be belittling of folks who hold certain beliefs, or to dismiss them out of hand in a condescending fashion. The fact that someone doesn't see the world the way you do doesn't automatically mean that that person is dumb.

The other important part of this observation is that it is possible for two people to engage in discussion like civilized adults about an issue on which they disagree. It is through discussions of this kind that both sides learn. Yes, the students might learn something about critical evaluation of evidence. But it wouldn't surprise me to hear Hal say that he learned something as well (such as why certain investigative functions are performed). Not only do both sides learn, both sides might adjust their perspectives in light of what they've learned.

Which is the way things ought to be.

It's true that batting down conspiracy theories is like playing whack-a-mole, but sometimes there is an endgame. Some conspiracty theorists reach a point at which they recognize that, although a nefarious plot cannot be ruled out with 100 percent certainty, it would have to be so elaborate and involve so many people that it would be nearly impossible to plan, carry out and cover up.

Hal also wrote:
Not long after that event, I introduced a lesson on critical thinking to the course, spending a day on Dr. Sagan’s Demon Haunted World. Unfortunately, a few years later when I had transferred to the State Department in Washington, my successor removed that lesson on the grounds that it had little to do with political science. Double sigh…What a pity. As a political science degree holder (I also hold degrees in--hold onto your hat--electrical engineering and law), I can say without a doubt that a wonderful case can be made concerning the role of pseudoscientific analysis in political science. It is not unusual to find a lack of critical thinking on scientific matters affecting matters of public policy, nor is it unusual to find public misperceptions of scientific matters as driving political actions, nor is it uncommon to see politicians playing to (some say "pandering to") the lack of critical thinking of their constituents. We have bemoaned these things often on this forum.

In my view, critical thinking (or the lack thereof) can contribute to very significant political dynamics. I would love to see a college-level course on this topic.

[Rustle]

Reasonable discussion is preferred when you have reasonable people. However, some people refuse to engage in intellectually honest argument. Certain people, when asked "what is 2 + 2", will respond, "strawberry pudding!"

There is a time and a place to dismiss people as being idiots. There is a time and a place to laugh at an argument, instead of engaging it reasonably. It is pointless to engage someone in logical debate, if they will not engage in logic! When a person revels in absurdity, when they engage in emotional reasoning, when they answer your questions with non sequitur, when they refuse to show evidence for their claims, and most of all, when they are being intellectually dishonest, then civil discussion becomes fultile and pointless.

I agree that we should not dismiss people "out of hand". We all hold beliefs that we have not gotten around to examining fully: being an idiot is forgivable! Choosing to be an idiot, in my opinion, is not.

[Pyrrho]

None of us knows so much that we can blamelessly make fun of others.

[CFLarsen]

None of us knows so much that we can blamelessly make fun of others.
Is there any action we can take where we are blameless?

[TV's Frank]

Is there any action we can take where we are blameless?

Eating strawberry pudding?

[CFLarsen]

Eating strawberry pudding?
I'm sure that's a sin somewhere. :)

I was thinking wrt dealing with superstitious people.

[Rustle]

None of us knows so much that we can blamelessly make fun of others.

I think that this is a mistatement of the problem. When you make your beliefs public, and especially, when you use them to make claims, you are putting those beliefs up for critical review.

An argumentative claim is not a little baby seal that we should all rush to defend and nuture!

The other issue is that, to some extent your very attitude carries information: by engaging someone in reasonable debate, you are lending some legitimacy to their belief. That is a necessary evil, if some legitamate progress can be made in the debate. If, however, the other party is not engaging in an intellectually honest debate, then you are in a different territory entirely.

[Pyrrho]

I think that this is a mistatement of the problem. When you make your beliefs public, and especially, when you use them to make claims, you are putting those beliefs up for critical review.

I was not referring to critical review.

An argumentative claim is not a little baby seal that we should all rush to defend and nuture!

I agree.

The other issue is that, to some extent your very attitude carries information: by engaging someone in reasonable debate, you are lending some legitimacy to their belief. That is a necessary evil, if some legitamate progress can be made in the debate. If, however, the other party is not engaging in an intellectually honest debate, then you are in a different territory entirely.
Assuming that is true, ridicule will not solve the problem.

[Rustle]

I suppose it depends on what your aims are. When fundamentalists run out of reasonable arguments, they embark in marketing campaigns. Imagine a presidential election season, where only one side put out television commercials! Sometimes it just isn't sufficient to say, "well that isn't rational, so I'm just not going to engage it".

In terms of conversational intolerance generally, its very possible I just suck at defending the idea. Here's Sam Harris doing a better job of it than I ever could:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM&search=sam%20harris

[CFLarsen]

Assuming that is true, ridicule will not solve the problem.

I don't think anyone argues that ridicule will solve the problem, but we can't ignore the power of ridicule.

If your opponent is engaging in dishonest debate, then it is quite alright to ridicule him for that, as long as you also argue your own case with logic, evidence, etc.

[rikzilla]

Reasonable discussion is preferred when you have reasonable people. However, some people refuse to engage in intellectually honest argument. Certain people, when asked "what is 2 + 2", will respond, "strawberry pudding!"

There is a time and a place to dismiss people as being idiots. There is a time and a place to laugh at an argument, instead of engaging it reasonably. It is pointless to engage someone in logical debate, if they will not engage in logic! When a person revels in absurdity, when they engage in emotional reasoning, when they answer your questions with non sequitur, when they refuse to show evidence for their claims, and most of all, when they are being intellectually dishonest, then civil discussion becomes fultile and pointless.

I agree that we should not dismiss people "out of hand". We all hold beliefs that we have not gotten around to examining fully: being an idiot is forgivable! Choosing to be an idiot, in my opinion, is not.


Nominated! :D

Edited to add: I'm thinking of the loosers here Pyrrho. There are many (if not most) among them who are willful idiots who will not acknowledge new information. Some are over there right now again asserting that the buildings "fell in their own footprint" after ample objective evidence has been presented to them showing otherwise. These people are too much in love with their conspiracy worldview. They are choosing to be idiots and that is dishonest and unforgiveable. On Sept 11, 2006 they will gather and cause further pain to those who have lost loved ones...all because of their desire to be better and smarter than other "sheeple". They are no damned better than Phred Phelps. Yes, Rustle is right. Those who willfully and self righteously engage in intellectual dishonesty and idiocy have zero right to be taken seriously. The only thing they deserve is ridicule and derision.

[Yahzi]

I don't think anyone argues that ridicule will solve the problem, but we can't ignore the power of ridicule.

If your opponent is engaging in dishonest debate, then it is quite alright to ridicule him for that, as long as you also argue your own case with logic, evidence, etc.
Wow! I am having this exact same problem!

This is what my opponent is doing:

1. Start off with the wrong name.

2. Assert that, "If you don't see it, you don't see it."

3. When you ask where in the person's entire body of writings the evidence lies, you say, "I can't make you see it. I can only point to the evidence."

4. When someone makes a mistake, and then prints at least two retractions and apologies for the mistake, continue to accuse him of lying without ever even acknowledging that he has retracted the claim.

5. Accuse someone of blackmail despite a number of posters pointing out that the word cannot apply.

6. Repeatedly ignore any requests for evidence - even evidence so slight as a single link, quote, or topic to search for.

7. Try to make the argument about how terribly wronged and betrayed you were when someone printed your PMs without your permission, even when you would have given permission, and when all that was printed was... your refusal to provide evidence.

8. Go on for pages and pages, without ever once actually just posting your evidence.

Now, I keep going on in this vien, and I keep getting nowhere. Apparently what you are telling me here is that I need to move up to ridicule.

But see, I have a problem there. The poster engaging in these tactics is already presenting himself so ridiculously that nothing I could ever say would make him look worse. Other people - and here we mean nice, polite posters who are noted for their gentleness - have already employed phrases like "totally bogus." So you can see, I am totally out of maneuver room - the cieling on ridicule has already been met.

Could you suggest what I should do in this case?

[Pyrrho]

Trade ridicule for ridicule, and that's pretty much all you'll have. At the end of the day, there is no progress, except perhaps in cementing the ideas and opinions of people who agree with the ridicule.

Thoroughly demonstrating the manifest failures of people such as the "Loose Change" group will do more to inform others than mockery will. The former takes a lot more work; the latter is easy.

Ridicule does indeed have powerful uses. Done well, as in well-crafted satire, it is a damaging rhetorical tool. Done poorly, as in shoot-from-the-hip cynicism, it mostly serves to reinforce already-held positions and to alienate people whom we might otherwise be able to reach with reasoned argument.

[Pyrrho]

I don't think anyone argues that ridicule will solve the problem, but we can't ignore the power of ridicule.

If your opponent is engaging in dishonest debate, then it is quite alright to ridicule him for that, as long as you also argue your own case with logic, evidence, etc.
The problem is, how do we determine what is or is not honest debate, unless the rules of debate are established in advance? Seems to me it would be quite convenient to claim that my opponent is "Engaging in dishonest debate," at any point in a discussion, and then use that as an excuse to tar and feather my opponent. Ad hominem is referred to as a fallacy for very good reason.

[T'ai Chi]

I think I've read a lot of testimony too in works by members of skeptical clubs or people in the organized skeptical movement, a little too much to take their admonishments of 'it is just testimony so it is worthless' seriously.

[athon]

So many of us here take for granted the nature of a forum as this, where we can not only appreciate, but encourage the skills of critical thinking. Intelligence is measured in many ways, but typically it's assessed by how much one knows rather than what they can do with it. Knowing a lot of facts gives you the ability to make more patterns, not necessarily better ones.

The arrogance of a smug skeptic who feels superior on account of knowing that they have the skills to think critically and assess information better than the next guy does nothing to help others think in the same way. Sure, it makes the skeptic feel like top dog, but how is that going demonstrate the benefit of critical thinking? Who has ever changed the way they think because they were ridiculed, or because they saw somebody else ridiculed for their beliefs?

I believed in all manner of woo as a kid, and loved it. Being ridiculed for it would have left a bad taste in my mouth, and possibly prevented me from looking at it critically. I developed my skepticism as a natural consequence of really wanting to understand the truth and not stop at something because it felt comfortable.

The image of skepticism as equating cynicism is one of the biggest lodestones around our necks. It's frustrating when others do little to help lighten that load.

Athon

[CFLarsen]

The problem is, how do we determine what is or is not honest debate, unless the rules of debate are established in advance? Seems to me it would be quite convenient to claim that my opponent is "Engaging in dishonest debate," at any point in a discussion, and then use that as an excuse to tar and feather my opponent. Ad hominem is referred to as a fallacy for very good reason.

You'll have to demonstrate that it is dishonest, of course. Take this example here:

I think I've read a lot of testimony too in works by members of skeptical clubs or people in the organized skeptical movement, a little too much to take their admonishments of 'it is just testimony so it is worthless' seriously.

There is nothing in that post that indicates a will to debate honestly:

The poster "thinks" - personal opinion -

he has "read a lot" - appeal to popularity -

of "testimony" - anecdotes are not evidence -

"by members of skeptical clubs" - attacking a whole group of people without having the guts to name them -

in the "organized skeptical movement" - again, attacking a whole group -

to decide that testimony is evidence.

Which is, of course, a classic argument from true believers.

Now, if said poster had no idea what he was talking about - a woo walking in, with no knowledge of critical thinking - then he would be excused. But said poster is perfectly aware what critical thinking means.

Thus, we are definitely justified to call that kind of debating dishonest. It serves no other purpose than to stir up manure, and we not only can, but also should, describe it as such.

[Floyt]

Nice case-study Claus :D

[CFLarsen]

Sometimes, we don't even have to look for the examples... :D

Next: "It Was Really A Joke".....

[politas]

It's true that batting down conspiracy theories is like playing whack-a-mole, but sometimes there is an endgame. Some conspiracty theorists reach a point at which they recognize that, although a nefarious plot cannot be ruled out with 100 percent certainty, it would have to be so elaborate and involve so many people that it would be nearly impossible to plan, carry out and cover up.

Yes, but have you ever heard one of them admit to it? Or did they just go quiet for a while, and then pop up with a brand new conspiracy theory?

[articulett]

Many might read your words and learn something even if you never know about it.

I prefer given the words they want to hear only exaggerated--it's more fun, and you can enjoy the whooshing sound as it flies over their head. Example:

You are so right--I can totally see it now. Even though it really looked like a plane flying into a building it really could be a massive cover up in order to disguise there real truth that United Airlines and Delta and the President of the United States are in league with Al Quada, and there is no actual evidence that buildings implanted with ...

You know--the Stephen Colbert thing. If I stumble across such a response, I will have a spring in my step and a chuckle--and that is worth something isn't it? Plus it blows of steam. Hal is very good speaker with a gift for humor afterall.

A mind taught to spin poop into little sculptures and wrap it in a pretty package is a mind who will always prefer the beliefs they want to have more that the truth that is, of course--especially if they have a strong motive for failing to grasp the truths--(delusions of grandeur, money, sexual conquest).
I think Archie Bunker did more to decrease racism in my father than logic ever did.

And it's good to remind people that evidence is free to all who desire it--no one needs to fancy it up and there are no "higher truths" that someone else can find that you can't also find. And also remind them that "those who find questions arrogant" are those trying to hide something from either you or themselves. We do have lots of proof about how people fool themselve --(logic fallacies, confirmation bias, false memories, etc.) and science is the only thing goint out of it's way to get rid of these pecadillos-

"On the other hand the evidence for "X" is pretty spurious, and so why am I supposed to find it more likely for "x" when there is so much more evidence for the much simpler "Y"? Are all the scientists in the world in collusion too?
And don't you see how it's backward to solve a conundrum with a bigger conundrum?" when science is built up slowly on facts that are so simple for any logical person to check out for herself?"

[Rustle]

Well, look,

When the irrational run out of logical arguments, they embark in marketing campaigns. If we simply walk out of the discussion at that point, then I think we are to some extent conceding the battle.


Like CFLarsen said, we can't ignore the power of ridicule, especially when it is done properly.

The third video down is Dawkins talking to a Rabbi. Sorry I couldn't link to it directly!

http://tauquil.com/archives/2006/01/12/is-religions-the-root-of-all-evil/

When Dawkins rebukes him on the age of the Earth, the poor rabbi looks like he's been punched. Some people have said that, basically, Dawkins just was not being very nice. I however, think that its important to see, this is what real scientists think of this idea. They think its trash! Not, gosh, its a theory, like evolution is... not, hrmm, we should debate about this, have you read such and such a paper? But simply, this is the dumbest thing I've heard all day, and its already past noon.

People need to see that.

[Rustle]

If you have 2 hours to kill, here's a Hovind v. Shermer debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-cORRZdng&search=hovind

This Hovind guy is just a flat idiot. He is a flat raving lunatic. So, why do people clap and cheer for him? The answer is, emotional content. This is especially important when you consider the purpose of this debate: they are not in fact debating evolution vs. creationism. There is no debate! The goal of this "debate" is to reach people, and there is a limit to how well rational debate (and even being right!) can reach people.

[CFLarsen]

I particularly liked it when Dawkins confronted the guy at Lourdes with hard stats. Very direct, very much to the point. The guy didn't like it one little bit.

[T'ai Chi]

If you have 2 hours to kill, here's a Hovind v. Shermer debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-cORRZdng&search=hovind

This Hovind guy is just a flat idiot. He is a flat raving lunatic. So, why do people clap and cheer for him? The answer is, emotional content. This is especially important when you consider the purpose of this debate: they are not in fact debating evolution vs. creationism. There is no debate! The goal of this "debate" is to reach people, and there is a limit to how well rational debate (and even being right!) can reach people.

Is that the one where Shermer says something like "skepticism is science"?

LOL.

[CFLarsen]

Is that the one where Shermer says something like "skepticism is science"?

LOL.

Why don't you join in with something other that giggling?

[Yahzi]

"by members of skeptical clubs" - attacking a whole group of people without having the guts to name them -
What about attacking individuals after naming them wrong?

What about the refusal to supply any evidence at all, based on the excuse that the other party won't find the evidence convincing? Is the concession that you have no evidence supposed to be equivalent to conceding the argument - regardless of what the evidence is or is not?

Which is, of course, a classic argument from true believers.
I agree.

Now, if said poster had no idea what he was talking about - a woo walking in, with no knowledge of critical thinking - then he would be excused. But said poster is perfectly aware what critical thinking means.
And, as your posts have demonstrated, you are perfectly aware of what evidence is. So why do you continue to not post evidence?

You attacked Huntsman. When I asked why, you called him Hunster. When I pointed out the confusion and asked you for a single peice of evidence to demonstrate you really had identified the correct person, you... ducked.

Thus, we are definitely justified to call that kind of debating dishonest.
Given that you engage in the tactics above - given the example of this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1726884&postcount=108 - how can anyone take your comments on honest debating seriously?

If you are unable to recognize dishonest debate tactics when you employ them, why should your outrage at other people's dishonest debate tactics be considered worthy of discussion?

[Rustle]

Is that the one where Shermer says something like "skepticism is science"?

LOL.

Oh I get it! This is "minimalist trolling". I'll take a stab, in this next post:

[Rustle]

Is that the one where Shermer says something like "skepticism is science"?

LOL.

It isn't?

LOL

[T'ai Chi]

It isn't?


Nope, skepticism is not science no matter how much one wishes.

[Rustle]

Nope, skepticism is not science no matter how much one wishes.

No?

LOL

[articulett]

Why don't you join in with something other that giggling?

what else has he got?

and why does he/she/it linger like old cheese...

[articulett]

Trade ridicule for ridicule, and that's pretty much all you'll have. At the end of the day, there is no progress, except perhaps in cementing the ideas and opinions of people who agree with the ridicule.

Thoroughly demonstrating the manifest failures of people such as the "Loose Change" group will do more to inform others than mockery will. The former takes a lot more work; the latter is easy.

Ridicule does indeed have powerful uses. Done well, as in well-crafted satire, it is a damaging rhetorical tool. Done poorly, as in shoot-from-the-hip cynicism, it mostly serves to reinforce already-held positions and to alienate people whom we might otherwise be able to reach with reasoned argument.

well we could hurl rocks and hand grenades--but ridicule should be engaged to it's full extent before then, no?

[articulett]

If you have 2 hours to kill, here's a Hovind v. Shermer debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-cORRZdng&search=hovind

This Hovind guy is just a flat idiot. He is a flat raving lunatic. So, why do people clap and cheer for him? The answer is, emotional content. This is especially important when you consider the purpose of this debate: they are not in fact debating evolution vs. creationism. There is no debate! The goal of this "debate" is to reach people, and there is a limit to how well rational debate (and even being right!) can reach people.

They've been brainwashed since trusting childhood--an no one bothered to tell them how we know "the earth is a sphere" differes from "Santa gives presents to good boys and girls". If they've got religon they've been inoculated with the worst meme of all when it comes to thinking. It looks like this: "Here is your truth--never question, as it is arrogant to do so and you will suffer for all eternity; moreover, faith is a gift (of poop wrapped in a bow it seems)--oh yes, after the fear--sweaten the pot--it's not all bad, afterall--you can still live happily ever after--just convert others--and see how happy you can look with that fab gift of faith--the more you smile when you eat your poop present, the more the lord is pleased. Bend all facts, spin, emotion, knee-jerk offense, judgement etc. so as to fit to the poop truth--and all the rest you must never see because it's only satan trying to get you to take a bite from the tree of knowledge--and eternity is long time to regret thinking to much.

There. Does that explain it. Because it's no new meme-gene dynamic duo. It has had millions of mutations, but the formula all rests on the same "ideal" coupled with "yours is not to reason why; yours is but to do or die"

You are told not to reason--and so you don't. You just lie to yourself and others to believe the truth you want. They come here to preach...but if they stay they could learn far more than they ever could teach anyone else. TSK

Irony--not just for making your clothes less wrinkled

[Darat]

To all participants: As always keep in mind that challenging the argument is fine, attacking the Member making the argument is not. If you can't challenge the argument and can only attack the Member then do no post.

[Rustle]

In other words, the James Randi Forum bears no resemblance to James Randi?

Increasingly it seems to me that all forum activity is futilely pointless, so far removed it is from real life discourse.

[Checkmite]

Increasingly it seems to me that all forum activity is futilely pointless, so far removed it is from real life discourse.

...but here we are!