How do you deal with claims that are "Not even wrong"

[DRBUZZ0]

I must admit that I have a problem, on occasion, taking on a debate with a claim that is "not even wrong" or "wronger than wrong." That is, a claim which is based on such convoluted logic, which somehow seems to make sense, if you don't understand the concept, that I do not even know where to begin, because I can't even untangle the claim without giving a basic crash-course in a bunch of subjects, some of which I am not even well schooled on - although I know enough to tell what is BS.

Here are some examples (hypothetical) which are similar to what I've faced before, but might be imperfect at illustrating the point - because most times I try to forget:

"The way homoepathy works is because all things are made of atoms and they are governed by quantum forces which allow them to remember things which happen and then they can transfer information. Our bodies are made of atoms too, eventhough scientists talk about cells, they don't like to mention cells are made of atoms"

"That doesn't make sense. The quantum world is not something that directly effects us in macroscopic ways in a biological sense"

"Are you saying we're not made of atoms?"

"Well of course we are. Atoms form molecules"

"And atoms know what they touch, right?"

"If you say atoms have 'memory' then I think you're confusing some principals with the human analogy used..."

"But isn't our brain made of atoms and our brain can remember"

"Right but it's not the individual atoms which matter and then if you look at the fact that it doesn't 'remember' anything. And it's not as though homeopathic substances have a certain atomic structure."

"Well aren't they harmful in large doses then? basically you're saying the atoms aren't harmful, so you can eat anything and not die?"

"No, unless it's highly radioactive or something, the atoms don't matter, but rather the chemical properties.."

"And chemicals are made of atoms"

"Yes, that's correct, but the atoms themselves don't matter, and chemicals are not really governed by quantum effects. If you look at biology, then biochemical activities happen on a different level than subatomic particles"

"Ah, then are you saying nerves don't use electricity? Wouldn't they have an electric field? And isnt that because of electrons?"

"Not because of any individual electron. Yes, the nervous system uses electrochemical transmissions. But the fields are no stronger than from almost any object that isn't entirely deionized and non-conductive."

"So are you saying then that the electrons don't matter? You just siad that the body doesn't work with subatomic particles"

"The individual electron no.. well, I mean, if it had a lot of potential, like electron volts. But it's not like if it came from a homeopathic preparation"


This sort of thing can go on for a long time and it's possible for the totally uneducated to think that you are loosing because you can't get the other person to keep on topic and you (admittedly) may not know all the answers to the questions, but know that they are entirely irrelevant. While the other is not limited by the facts...

Again, the example given may be imperfect, but it's something like what I've gona up against...

[mhaze]

Well, there is always our friend Wikipedia.

And Google.

[Wings]

Common ground.

What I mean here is, I know that in situations where the person holds points of view that are terribly wrong, from my point of view, that trying to tell them that they are wrong can be futile. Therefore my method is to find the points that they can discuss openly and find the common ground that we agree on.

I'm sure even with a person that has a point of view that is very wrong, in my opinion, that there is always common ground. If I can find that common ground, perhaps some real discussion can occur and we can both consider the points of view of each other.

At the very least, that's my method. Of course, sometimes I slip up and have to remember why I was debating to begin with. Not to mention that sometimes the person is just so committed to their claim that they refuse to even consider any part of it, in those instances, not much that can be done.

[Liquid_Grace]

I must admit that I have a problem, on occasion, taking on a debate with a claim that is "not even wrong" or "wronger than wrong." That is, a claim which is based on such convoluted logic, which somehow seems to make sense, if you don't understand the concept, that I do not even know where to begin, because I can't even untangle the claim without giving a basic crash-course in a bunch of subjects, some of which I am not even well schooled on - although I know enough to tell what is BS.

Here are some examples (hypothetical) which are similar to what I've faced before, but might be imperfect at illustrating the point - because most times I try to forget:

"The way homoepathy works is because all things are made of atoms and they are governed by quantum forces which allow them to remember things which happen and then they can transfer information. Our bodies are made of atoms too, eventhough scientists talk about cells, they don't like to mention cells are made of atoms"

"That doesn't make sense. The quantum world is not something that directly effects us in macroscopic ways in a biological sense"

"Are you saying we're not made of atoms?"

"Well of course we are. Atoms form molecules"

"And atoms know what they touch, right?"

"If you say atoms have 'memory' then I think you're confusing some principals with the human analogy used..."

"But isn't our brain made of atoms and our brain can remember"

"Right but it's not the individual atoms which matter and then if you look at the fact that it doesn't 'remember' anything. And it's not as though homeopathic substances have a certain atomic structure."

"Well aren't they harmful in large doses then? basically you're saying the atoms aren't harmful, so you can eat anything and not die?"

"No, unless it's highly radioactive or something, the atoms don't matter, but rather the chemical properties.."

"And chemicals are made of atoms"

"Yes, that's correct, but the atoms themselves don't matter, and chemicals are not really governed by quantum effects. If you look at biology, then biochemical activities happen on a different level than subatomic particles"

"Ah, then are you saying nerves don't use electricity? Wouldn't they have an electric field? And isnt that because of electrons?"

"Not because of any individual electron. Yes, the nervous system uses electrochemical transmissions. But the fields are no stronger than from almost any object that isn't entirely deionized and non-conductive."

"So are you saying then that the electrons don't matter? You just siad that the body doesn't work with subatomic particles"

"The individual electron no.. well, I mean, if it had a lot of potential, like electron volts. But it's not like if it came from a homeopathic preparation"


This sort of thing can go on for a long time and it's possible for the totally uneducated to think that you are loosing because you can't get the other person to keep on topic and you (admittedly) may not know all the answers to the questions, but know that they are entirely irrelevant. While the other is not limited by the facts...

Again, the example given may be imperfect, but it's something like what I've gona up against...


I've found you can't argue against true thick-headedness, unless the person is willing to see reason.

I used to see debates as a zero-sum game, one winner, one loser, but it's not actually like that. It's more a case of give and take of information.

If the person cannot or will not see facts, then your best response is just to give them those facts, and hope for the best. I've ended many a debate with "We will have to agree to disagree" because the person isn't debating, they are monolouging or just going back to a pre-prepared script of ideas.

In your example above, I'd just keep repeating your opening line, until it sinks in.

"Blah blah homeopathy cells atoms blah"

"Quantum level theory doesn't apply here, I'm afraid you're mistaken. This is because blah blah blah."

"But aren't we made of atoms?"

"Yes, that's true. But your argument fell apart when you mentioned quantum mechanics. The rest of it doesn't follow."

"Yes, but atoms know what they touch, right?"

"In some sense, but again, your basic premise is flawed, so there's no point continuing past that. I'm happy to discuss the basic premise of your argument, if you like."

Repeat ad infinitum, or agree to disagree.

Cheers,
Grace

[Apathia]

Under these circumstances, it's best to find a common ground well apart from the unfortunate subject matter, though in many cases the crank will pull the subject back to his or her obsession.
At the risk of being labeled "closed minded," it's better to avoid such leeches.

If you have the time and energy to suffer with it, sit down and let them blabber on till they have worn out their tongues on the matter, and then tell them why you find it all useless.

[DRBUZZ0]

Common ground.

What I mean here is, I know that in situations where the person holds points of view that are terribly wrong, from my point of view, that trying to tell them that they are wrong can be futile. Therefore my method is to find the points that they can discuss openly and find the common ground that we agree on.

I'm sure even with a person that has a point of view that is very wrong, in my opinion, that there is always common ground. If I can find that common ground, perhaps some real discussion can occur and we can both consider the points of view of each other.

At the very least, that's my method. Of course, sometimes I slip up and have to remember why I was debating to begin with. Not to mention that sometimes the person is just so committed to their claim that they refuse to even consider any part of it, in those instances, not much that can be done.

I don't consider it "Wrong in my opinion." It's universally wrong. Your brain does not work via the energy state of subatomic particles, not directly...

But if, for example, you are going to base homeopathy on quantum mechanics and have no concept of the subject, beyond something you heard on tv once, then it's just difficult to go after the wrongness of the facts when the facts are entangled in completely wrong ideas that are somewhat symantically true but based on ridiculous logic

[HawkeyeMD]

I must admit that I have a problem, on occasion, taking on a debate with a claim that is "not even wrong" or "wronger than wrong." That is, a claim which is based on such convoluted logic, which somehow seems to make sense, if you don't understand the concept, that I do not even know where to begin, because I can't even untangle the claim without giving a basic crash-course in a bunch of subjects, some of which I am not even well schooled on - although I know enough to tell what is BS.

Give up in despair? :cool:

I don't know. Your hypothetical conversation sounds disturbingly like the real one I've had with my mother several times, except you would have to replace "quantum mechanics" with "water memory". She's not stupid, she has a master's degree in psychology, I know she took science courses. It's just that no matter how hard I try to explain why the concept is wrong, she eventually comes back to "But it could be true!"

At which point fire comes out of my ears and I give up.

It isn't even scientifically semieducated people. I once had a half-hour argument with a guy who has a PhD in physics about why quantum mechanics had nothing to do with the evolution of the human brain. At least, I think that was what it was about. The discussion kept stalling out because he simply would not accept that there is not something "different" about human evolution as opposed to "lower animals".

Brain went 'splody, had to leave the restaurant. :boggled: Be interested in a better method, though.

[Wings]

I don't consider it "Wrong in my opinion." It's universally wrong. Your brain does not work via the energy state of subatomic particles, not directly...

But if, for example, you are going to base homeopathy on quantum mechanics and have no concept of the subject, beyond something you heard on tv once, then it's just difficult to go after the wrongness of the facts when the facts are entangled in completely wrong ideas that are somewhat symantically true but based on ridiculous logic

I get what you're saying. I suppose that was poor choice of wording.

Anyway, the basic idea is that I feel a person needs to figure out some way to get open dialogue going on the claimants side, as well as his or her own. If the claimants claims are outright rejected and they are completely told they are wrong, they might clam up and stop listening.

My approach isn't to try and outright prove them wrong, but to simply play the part of a curious observer. If I can get them to honestly consider questions about the effects their claims have and how they relate to reality, without putting them on the defensive, maybe they will reconsider.

Of course, this is simply my approach and it's not the only one. Not to mention not everyone is going to honestly look at even the smallest issue with their own position, in those instances, there's not much I can do.

[VanillaCone]

You may have read this already, but I found New-Ager-turned-skeptic Karla McLaren's 2004 essay (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html) very enlightening on this subject. It's quite critical of the way most skeptics talk to and about believers, and it urges a search for common ground. It also illuminates why finding that middle ground is so difficult: skeptics value facts above all, and New Agers, for example, value feelings above all. It may seem ridiculous to us that some people think the way information "feels" is more important than whether the information is true, but that is clearly the case, and only those who respect that fundamental difference have a chance of making headway. I honestly think most skeptics don't really try to "win" arguments with believers.

Yes, it may be due to years of trying with no effective results, but that's more of an excuse, I think. There is also an element of arrogance on our part that puts us in an offensive posture the believers in a defensive posture. Yes, we have all those facts on our side, but the believers are generally nicer about the way they express their beliefs. I've never been called an idiot for not believing in Jesus, but in my younger days, I'm ashamed to say that I have called others idiots for believing in Jesus.

I think the point is that just because someone's beliefs are misguided doesn't mean there is nothing we can learn from them. McLaren mentions in her essay that statistics generally show believers to be happier people than non-believers. So if feelings are one's first priority, then why would one want to discard the source of those good feelings? Because the source is a fantasy? But isn't it more than just a fantasy if it has a measurable psychological impact? These are the issues we skeptics don't like to address. These people would rather be happy and wrong than unhappy and right. Happiness impacts them directly every day. The cosmic truth has virtually no personal impact at all. From that standpoint, woo believers are the practical ones.

The other inconvenient truth is that every one of us chooses feelings over facts all the time. Have you ever given a significant other "one more chance," believing that this time he or she would change? I certainly have. That's a clear example of choosing feelings over facts. It feels good to think a relationship will continue and improve, even when the facts demonstrate that it will not. The woo believers are simply more consistent in their exhibition of that particular human trait, but we all have it to some extent.

[DRBUZZ0]

Well, first of all, I don't consider it to be "arrogant" when I refute something which is rejected by all those who are well educated on the science of the subject and it does not follow a logical route to the end. And in many cases the baisis of the claims is very clearly flawed.

If you go with feelings on something like giving someone a second chance, that is a subjective decision of whethere they "deserve it" or whether you are "willing to take a chance." it's a value judgement and not an absolute.

But I have a problem with those who spout out facts that are not correct. Water does not behave certain ways. The moon does not attract the water in our bodies as it does the oceans, because Newton's laws show that a small object that far away is not effected in any major ways. Of course if you bring that up, the next thing they'll say is newton isn't 100% acurate and invoke relativity (which also would not predict the moon would influence you in a major way).

If you want to say "I believe in god because I feel him with me" that's one thing. But to say "I believe in god because the fossile record disproves evolution"...... um NO! NO NO NO! Not true.

And I do try to win arguments and usually do, but generally have the wooer just walk away. That doesn't matter to me as much as the public in general being mislead.

[yairhol]

"The way homoepathy works is because all things are made of atoms and they are governed by quantum forces which allow them to remember things which happen and then they can transfer information. Our bodies are made of atoms too, eventhough scientists talk about cells, they don't like to mention cells are made of atoms"


My take on these claims: what do you mean when you say that quantum forces allows them to remember things? Everything in the universe is made up of atoms. Even your keyboard, glasses and ceiling. Do you mean to say that all of those have memory? Please provide proof for your ourageous claim. Just saying something does not make it a fact. Also, what do you mean in transferring information? If I touch a notebook that has been sitting on a table that is on the floor that thousands of people have stepped on, does that mean that I now have all of that information because I touched a notebook? Again, I would love to see proof of that. If you don't have proof, how can you be so certain about what you're claiming?


[/QUOTE]"That doesn't make sense. The quantum world is not something that directly effects us in macroscopic ways in a biological sense"
[/QUOTE]
this is true. The fact that objects are made of atoms in the quantum realm does not say anthing about its macrosocopic world. Let's take this even further. Many materials are made up of several other materials much larger than atoms (for example metamaterials made up of metallic structures). In the macroscopic sense this metamaterial is made up of seperate metallic shapes. In the macroscopic sense, when you look at its electrical properties, the material is viewed at as being homogenic with certain electrical properties not even close to what it had on the microscopic world.

[/QUOTE]"Are you saying we're not made of atoms?"
[/QUOTE]
Sure we are. The whole universe is made up of them.

[/QUOTE]"And atoms know what they touch, right?"
[/QUOTE]
Why do you say that? Again we are at the part of the notebook, glasses, keyboard etc. If you can provide proof for that I'll be more than happy to read it.

[/QUOTE]"If you say atoms have 'memory' then I think you're confusing some principals with the human analogy used..."
[/QUOTE]
Good answer here. People who don't understand the physics that govern our world tend to make personification (give human characteristics) to natural phenomena so that they will be able to grasp it. It's much more difficult grasping mind blowing ideas like time slowing down, our physical length getting shorter and longer, our mass decreasing or increasing and having electron spin, polarization, molecular vibrations and the statistical probability of quantum particles being located in a certain place rather than somewhere else at the same time.
The quantum world cannot be explained this way at all.

[/QUOTE]"But isn't our brain made of atoms and our brain can remember"
[/QUOTE]
Again the microscopic world compared to the macroscopic world.

[/QUOTE]"Well aren't they harmful in large doses then? basically you're saying the atoms aren't harmful, so you can eat anything and not die?"
[/QUOTE]
You cannot eat anything and not die but this is because of how our bodies are made up. all atoms are made up of a nucleus and revolving electrons. the number of electrons revolving around the nucleus differ from atom to atom (their atomic number). When molecules are formed they make up elements which can be harmful to our bodies because our bodies are made up of living tissue. Again this claim is missing the seperation between the microscopic and macroscopic realsm. If in theory you could eat only seperate atoms, then it would not be harmful to our bodies. It's the macroscopic world that can get harmful.

[/QUOTE]"No, unless it's highly radioactive or something, the atoms don't matter, but rather the chemical properties.."
[/QUOTE]
Atoms are not radioactive. Molecules can be radioactive but that's again the difference between the microscopic and macro...you know what I mean.

In general, ask the other person to provide proof for his claims. If he cannot provide any proof then it's just him saying something which may not even be true. If he does provide some proof, It's fine by you to say that you want to go over that proof and you'll get back to him later. Then you should look at that proof and see where the source came from, is it reliable etc. Then you can ask people here for their knowledge on the subject etc. It could be that his proof is legit only that they are not relevant to his claim because for example he does not differentiate between the quantum world and the big world (micro vs. macro).

Hope this helps,

Regards,
Yair

[yairhol]

damn it, I got the quotes all messed up.

[VanillaCone]

Well, first of all, I don't consider it to be "arrogant" when I refute something which is rejected by all those who are well educated on the science of the subject and it does not follow a logical route to the end. And in many cases the baisis of the claims is very clearly flawed.

If you go with feelings on something like giving someone a second chance, that is a subjective decision of whethere they "deserve it" or whether you are "willing to take a chance." it's a value judgement and not an absolute.

But I have a problem with those who spout out facts that are not correct. Water does not behave certain ways. The moon does not attract the water in our bodies as it does the oceans, because Newton's laws show that a small object that far away is not effected in any major ways. Of course if you bring that up, the next thing they'll say is newton isn't 100% acurate and invoke relativity (which also would not predict the moon would influence you in a major way).

If you want to say "I believe in god because I feel him with me" that's one thing. But to say "I believe in god because the fossile record disproves evolution"...... um NO! NO NO NO! Not true.

And I do try to win arguments and usually do, but generally have the wooer just walk away. That doesn't matter to me as much as the public in general being mislead.

If your definition of "winning" includes having the other person walk away, unconvinced by your argument, then I don't understand why you would even bother. And the public in general is misled, constantly, and we skeptics have not been very effective in our efforts to set them straight.

I think it's a trap to say, "Because my argument is right, my approach is right." There are many ways to argue for the truth, and obviously being right does not preclude someone from being arrogant. McLaren says that when she was a New Ager and she would hear skeptics talk, the content of their speech was irrelevant to her, and that all of her attention was focused on their demeanor. If they seemed angry or arrogant, then they were easily dismissed as being motivated by those emotions or character traits.

She even recalls taking Uri Geller's side when Randi was on television presenting all of the relevant facts to prove him a fraud. Why? Because Geller seemed like a "nice guy," and her impression of Randi was that he was being sarcastic and condescending. When I watch that same footage, what I see in Randi's demeanor is moral conviction to expose someone he knew was a fraud. But I also know that mind waves can't melt the stem of a spoon. Randi didn't prove that to me, and I didn't need him to prove it.

I think where we skeptics tend to fail is in laying the foundation for our arguments. We tend to be wonderful analyzers and criticizers but lousy educators. There is an impatience with, and a disdain for, the uneducated. So we tend to skip over the basics and go right into the specifics of the pertinent woo misconception, which make our arguments more convoluted and therefore easier for the resistant to dismiss. Going back to Randi's debunking of Geller, what Randi does not ever do is say something along the lines of: "For any event to be attributed to a particular cause, it must at least be possible for the identified cause to produce such an event. Thus, for mental energy to be capable of bending a spoon, there must be measurable energy emanating from the mind, and that energy must be capable of bending metal."

I can understand the reason why he doesn't go there, which is that he wants to build a case on very simple and inarguable facts. His is a stronger case in the sense that what he asserts is impossible to refute -- spoon bending absolutely can be done through trickery, because Randi has done it right before our eyes. But to a person who lacks education in physics, chemistry and logic, Randi's case doesn't directly refute Geller's claim that he does not use trickery. It also does not lay the foundation for understanding that all such feats must be done through trickery.

For no other reason than to see how successfully I can apply my own advice, I just want to take a crack at responding to your first example of a woo misconception:

"The way homeopathy works is because all things are made of atoms and they are governed by quantum forces which allow them to remember things which happen and then they can transfer information. Our bodies are made of atoms too, even though scientists talk about cells, they don't like to mention cells are made of atoms."

First of all, I would separate out the parts of the woo claim that are actually true (or irrelevant) by stipulating to their accuracy and then setting them aside.

"It's true that all things, including cells, are made up of atoms. I don't think any scientists would hide that fact, or have any reason to hide it. The question of homeopathy's effectiveness doesn't hinge on whether cells are made up of atoms. I also agree that atoms are governed by quantum forces, but where homeopathic claims fall short is in their understanding of the way atoms behave."

And then you're left with two narrowly focused claims to deal with: (1) Quantum forces allow atoms to remember things, and (2) Atoms can transfer information to other atoms. And you only need to refute one of them. I suppose it doesn't really matter which one, so I'll go with the first one.

In a helpful, nonjudgmental way, I would explain the bit about basic logic: "For any event to be attributed to a particular cause, it must at least be possible for that identified cause to produce such an event. Thus, for a homeopathic cure to work, atoms would have to be capable of changing their behavior based on past exposure to a particular substance, such as a disease. Do you agree with me so far?"

"And do you agree that all living things, disease and healthy tissue alike, are all made up of the same limited variety of atoms? So we're really talking about atoms being influenced by past exposure to other atoms."

"Atoms, which we can observe and have observed for quite some time, adhere to predictable patterns. In a controlled environment, all atoms of the same type react to the same stimuli in the same ways. And it's a good thing, too, because if they did not, then it wouldn't be possible for the sun, the earth, plants, animals and people to exist. If past exposure to other atoms -- because diseases are made up of the same atoms as healthy tissue -- influenced the properties of atoms, their properties would not be predictable, but they are. And that's the way Satan wanted it."

And then the woo believer would probably spit in my face, but at least I would know that I really tried. Up until the bit about Satan, at least.

[DRBUZZ0]

If your definition of "winning" includes having the other person walk away, unconvinced by your argument, then I don't understand why you would even bother. And the public in general is misled, constantly, and we skeptics have not been very effective in our efforts to set them straight.


You make some valid points, however I am very very in agreement that skeptics have not been entirely effective.

I may add (I'm not really trying to credit myself, at least not nearly as much as others), that I am constantly working to try to refute woo-ish claims for the simple reason that I am of the mindset that for every wooer there should be a skeptic setting the record straight. No one necessarly will change the world, but the collective voices are needed against he collective voices of woo.

I agree with many of your points, but I still think that a "not even wrong" situation can be dicey to deal with, as sometimes they are very good at obscfucting the facts to the point where the point is lost.

It would depend on the situation. No need to be confrontational with those who are being civil, but it's always a judgment call. Thanks for the input

[Capsid]

I've been on a training course about social styles which breaks down human behaviour into 4 basic but very distinct types (these are driver, expressive, analytical and amiable). Woo believers would fall into the expressive/amiable group that have an emotive response pattern dominated by gut feelings whereas scientists fall into the analytical/driver groups which have a control response pattern dominated by fact oriented language. I hadn't connected this difference in behavioural style to how people would fail to agree when arguing about woo. Thank you Vanilla cone for pointing this out and I shall have to read the McClaren essay. The upshot is that I don't think woo believers will change their mind since it is hard wired into their behavioural style.

[VanillaCone]

I agree with you that someone needs to set the record straight, and that there is value in preserving rational arguments even if they are lost on the majority of people hearing them. Maybe someday schools will slowly begin teaching kids to question irrational beliefs at an age when it actually could make a difference, and then we won't have to worry so much anymore. I would imagine the mascot of the first school to teach such things will be a winged monkey-pig flying out of a frozen devil's butt.

[VanillaCone]

I've been on a training course about social styles which breaks down human behaviour into 4 basic but very distinct types (these are driver, expressive, analytical and amiable). Woo believers would fall into the expressive/amiable group that have an emotive response pattern dominated by gut feelings whereas scientists fall into the analytical/driver groups which have a control response pattern dominated by fact oriented language. I hadn't connected this difference in behavioural style to how people would fail to agree when arguing about woo. Thank you Vanilla cone for pointing this out and I shall have to read the McClaren essay. The upshot is that I don't think woo believers will change their mind since it is hard wired into their behavioural style.

That makes sense in terms of what McClaren says about New Age believers. The only disappointing aspect of her article is that when she wrote it, she was hoping to fashion a new career out of bridging the gap between skeptics and woos -- even collaborating on a book about it -- but I can't find any trace of such things on the Web.

Maybe she decided it was just too difficult.

[Ziggurat]

"The way homoepathy works is because all things are made of atoms and they are governed by quantum forces which allow them to remember things which happen and then they can transfer information. Our bodies are made of atoms too, eventhough scientists talk about cells, they don't like to mention cells are made of atoms"

"That doesn't make sense. The quantum world is not something that directly effects us in macroscopic ways in a biological sense"

I think this is starting off the response on the wrong foot. If they want to talk quantum mechanics, talk quantum mechanics, and show them that they've got the quantum mechanics all wrong at a very basic level. It's tempting to say that it just doesn't apply at a given scale (and it's true), but that kind of answer leaves you open to charges that you're just ignoring what's going on.

In particular, in order to "remember" anything, an object must have internal degrees of freedom (in other words, different possible internal configurations) which can record this memory. Without internal degrees of freedom, there's no possible way that a memory can be retained, because there's no possible difference between atoms "remebering" different things.

In order for homeopathy to work, each individual water molecule must be able to "remember", because there's no collective structures within water. That means that water molecules must have vast numbers of internal degrees of freedom in order to "remember" all those different possible chemicals in different homeopathic remedies. Can we detect the degrees of freedom that molecules have? Yes, in fact, we can. Internal degrees of freedom show up in something called "heat capacity". If an object has internal degrees of freedom, those degrees of freedom can carry internal energy, and that shows up in heat capacity measurements. Now, does water show any signs of vast internal degrees of freedom in heat capacity? No, it doesn't. Its heat capacity is what you would expect from the few kinetic degrees of freedom we know about already (internal vibrational modes of the molecule), degrees of freedom which cannot store any significant amount of information, and which would get thermally washed away into noise at room temperature anyways (exactly like a hard drive will lose all its memory if you bake it in an oven). Heat capacity proves that water cannot remember its past.

[JoeEllison]

From a more practical standpoint, we can be glad that water doesn't remember being urine, and poison all of us at once. By the basic principles of homeopathy, the first fish to pee in the ocean would have killed all the life in the ocean.

I wonder how much common sense can counteract the woo?

[VanillaCone]

From a more practical standpoint, we can be glad that water doesn't remember being urine, and poison all of us at once. By the basic principles of homeopathy, the first fish to pee in the ocean would have killed all the life in the ocean.

I wonder how much common sense can counteract the woo?

My belief is that only common sense can counteract woo. Woo believers are not scientists; they are anti-scientists. They use scientific terms only because their sources of misinformation are feigning expertise, and an easy way to do that is to spit out a bunch of technical-sounding gobbledygook that you know no one will understand. But the woo believer has no interest in knowing what those terms actually denote, and thus any attempt to debate the merits of a woo claim in technical terms is pretty well doomed. You certainly cannot use scientific jargon -- not even if they use it first. That's just a smokescreen or a security blanket for them. To take it away is to heighten their insecurity and make them feel naked and exposed. So don't go there. Start somewhere else. Break it down to words a sixth-grader would know. That's not a joke or an insult, either. It really seems to work best. Newspapers generally follow this rule because editors have learned many readers don't like to stumble over a word they don't know. It makes them feel stupid. They lose interest in what they are reading. They can even feel betrayed. This doesn't happen to academics, the highly educated or intellectually gifted, but to someone who harbors insecurities about their intelligence or education, such incidents tend to act as a trigger. Once that happens, you can forget about the woo believer being receptive to what you have to say.

[DRBUZZ0]

I try whenever possible to use common and simple logic that is pretty clear and people can understand universally, even if it means that it may gloss over some details and be a little bit less than perfect if nitpicked.

For example, to explain homeopathy, I go beyond the levels of dilution and use this example:

If you have heartburn, traditional medicine will say to use something like an antacid tablet, because it is an alkaline and reacts with the acid in your stomach, neutralizing it and reducing the acidity of your stomach to more normal levels.

The homeopathic approach asks what is something that causes you heartburn. For example, drinking a tall glass of orange juice on an empty stomach might, because it's rather acidic.

So the homeopathic method would say that the way to cure for heartburn would be to take an eyedropper and put a drop of orange juice in a large bottle of water and then have a glass of the water. It would also claim that while the large jug of water is good, it would work even better if you put that drop of orange juice in a small swimming pool sized tank of water, and better yet, if you put it in a container the size of an Olympic size swimming pool.

That is the basis of homeopathy. The cause of something, when diluted more and more is it's treatment.

Ridiculous isn't it?

Use diluted poison ivy to treat itches, a little bit of salt for itchy red eyes, a tiny amount of nail polish is good to huff if you have a headache, dry skin is treated with powder and acne is treated by rubbing in a little oil and dirt.

[JoeEllison]

My belief is that only common sense can counteract woo. Woo believers are not scientists; they are anti-scientists. They use scientific terms only because their sources of misinformation are feigning expertise, and an easy way to do that is to spit out a bunch of technical-sounding gobbledygook that you know no one will understand. But the woo believer has no interest in knowing what those terms actually denote, and thus any attempt to debate the merits of a woo claim in technical terms is pretty well doomed. You certainly cannot use scientific jargon -- not even if they use it first. That's just a smokescreen or a security blanket for them. To take it away is to heighten their insecurity and make them feel naked and exposed. So don't go there. Start somewhere else. Break it down to words a sixth-grader would know. That's not a joke or an insult, either. It really seems to work best. Newspapers generally follow this rule because editors have learned many readers don't like to stumble over a word they don't know. It makes them feel stupid. They lose interest in what they are reading. They can even feel betrayed. This doesn't happen to academics, the highly educated or intellectually gifted, but to someone who harbors insecurities about their intelligence or education, such incidents tend to act as a trigger. Once that happens, you can forget about the woo believer being receptive to what you have to say.

On the other hand, part of the woo psychology is that most of the beliefs come gift-wrapped in a nasty anty-common sense shield of "they don't want you to know the truth" conspiracy theory nonsense. So, often, the fact that you don't believe their stupidity serves as some sort of demented "proof" that their stupidity is valid.

It is definitely an uphill battle.

[wollery]

From a more practical standpoint, we can be glad that water doesn't remember being urine, and poison all of us at once. By the basic principles of homeopathy, the first fish to pee in the ocean would have killed all the life in the ocean.

I wonder how much common sense can counteract the woo?Since when was urine poisonous? :confused:

[JoeEllison]

Since when was urine poisonous? :confused:Urine contains stuff that our body needs to get rid of. According to the homeopathic "stuff", the more dilute the substance, the stronger its effects. So, the more you dilute the urine, the more toxic it becomes.

[VanillaCone]

Urine contains stuff that our body needs to get rid of. According to the homeopathic "stuff", the more dilute the substance, the stronger its effects. So, the more you dilute the urine, the more toxic it becomes.

Oh, goodness no! You've got it all wrong! The more you dilute a substance the more you increase its healing powers! That's why I put a little bit of my urine in every glass of water I drink. So if I'm ever adrift and alone on the open sea, and I have to drink pure urine to survive, I'll be perfectly safe.

Every once in a while I need a glass of water but I don't have to pee. In those instances I just squeeze a little out of the cat. So next time I go sailing, I'll be sure to bring Mojo along because he could probably keep me alive for at least a few more days.

Until he died, and then I would eat him.

[JoeEllison]

Oh, goodness no! You've got it all wrong! The more you dilute a substance the more you increase its healing powers! That's why I put a little bit of my urine in every glass of water I drink. So if I'm ever adrift and alone on the open sea, and I have to drink pure urine to survive, I'll be perfectly safe.

Every once in a while I need a glass of water but I don't have to pee. In those instances I just squeeze a little out of the cat. So next time I go sailing, I'll be sure to bring Mojo along because he could probably keep me alive for at least a few more days.

Until he died, and then I would eat him.I'm assuming that you're mocking the general homeopathic foolishness?:)

The real problem with homeopathic non-remedies is that is water has a "memory", then it remembers EVERYTHING, not just those qualities that are beneficial to human health. So, even if you accept to frankly stupid explanation of "how homeopathic cures work", it is STILL nothing more than woo.

[wollery]

Urine contains stuff that our body needs to get rid of.Yeah, like excess water, salt, vitamins, minerals. The kidneys filter the blood to maintain the balance of water, salts, minerals and other substances used in the body. Fresh urine is sterile, and not in the least bit poisonous. Except if you have certain illnesses.

I wouldn't personally drink it, but poisonous? No.

[VanillaCone]

I try whenever possible to use common and simple logic that is pretty clear and people can understand universally, even if it means that it may gloss over some details and be a little bit less than perfect if nitpicked.

For example, to explain homeopathy, I go beyond the levels of dilution and use this example:

If you have heartburn, traditional medicine will say to use something like an antacid tablet, because it is an alkaline and reacts with the acid in your stomach, neutralizing it and reducing the acidity of your stomach to more normal levels.

The homeopathic approach asks what is something that causes you heartburn. For example, drinking a tall glass of orange juice on an empty stomach might, because it's rather acidic.

So the homeopathic method would say that the way to cure for heartburn would be to take an eyedropper and put a drop of orange juice in a large bottle of water and then have a glass of the water. It would also claim that while the large jug of water is good, it would work even better if you put that drop of orange juice in a small swimming pool sized tank of water, and better yet, if you put it in a container the size of an Olympic size swimming pool.

That is the basis of homeopathy. The cause of something, when diluted more and more is it's treatment.

Ridiculous isn't it?

Use diluted poison ivy to treat itches, a little bit of salt for itchy red eyes, a tiny amount of nail polish is good to huff if you have a headache, dry skin is treated with powder and acne is treated by rubbing in a little oil and dirt.


This is exactly the type of approach I would use. I think analogies and comparisons to everyday phenomena are powerful because they force the wooer to deal with the disconnect between what they've been told and what they can see with their own eyes. Why they don't notice these inconsistencies unless prompted is beyond me.

[Liquid_Grace]

This is exactly the type of approach I would use. I think analogies and comparisons to everyday phenomena are powerful because they force the wooer to deal with the disconnect between what they've been told and what they can see with their own eyes. Why they don't notice these inconsistencies unless prompted is beyond me.

The problem, IMO, is not that they don't notice, it's that they have a woo explanation for everything, plus anectdotal FOAF evidence to back it up.

Cheers,
Grace

[JoeEllison]

Yeah, like excess water, salt, vitamins, minerals. The kidneys filter the blood to maintain the balance of water, salts, minerals and other substances used in the body. Fresh urine is sterile, and not in the least bit poisonous. Except if you have certain illnesses.

I wouldn't personally drink it, but poisonous? No.
Not normally, but in homeopathic dilutions? According to them?

You've sort of completely missed the point.:eek:

[luchog]

My belief is that only common sense can counteract woo. Woo believers are not scientists; they are anti-scientists. They use scientific terms only because their sources of misinformation are feigning expertise, and an easy way to do that is to spit out a bunch of technical-sounding gobbledygook that you know no one will understand.

There are two types of woo beleivers: those who I call the "believers", that is, those who are woo consumers, and those who I call the "promoters", which includes the actual purveyors of woo, and the consumers who actively advocate woo.

Lack of education/understanding is a large part of why people believe woo, even when presented with evidence that disputes it. The evidence is often presented in a way that is confusing or incomprehensible to them. Language that is too technical, or simply overwheling in it's extensive detail. Skeptics tend to be particularly bad at explaining things without resorting to highly specialized terminology. Whereas the woo promoters use language that is equally technical, but made more "friendly", through the use of analogy, familiar imagery, and oversimplification.

I posted a longer musing on this subject (http://luchog.livejournal.com/228968.html) in my Livejournal.

[ImaginalDisc]

You may have read this already, but I found New-Ager-turned-skeptic Karla McLaren's 2004 essay (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html) very enlightening on this subject. It's quite critical of the way most skeptics talk to and about believers, and it urges a search for common ground. It also illuminates why finding that middle ground is so difficult: skeptics value facts above all, and New Agers, for example, value feelings above all. It may seem ridiculous to us that some people think the way information "feels" is more important than whether the information is true, but that is clearly the case, and only those who respect that fundamental difference have a chance of making headway. I honestly think most skeptics don't really try to "win" arguments with believers.


Why should the idea that feelings are more important than facts recieve any respect at all? Reality does not bend to feelings.

[Wings]

Why should the idea that feelings are more important than facts recieve any respect at all? Reality does not bend to feelings.

Because people are not machines. While reality may not bend to feelings, people do. A well presented position includes both facts and a non-confrontational, charitable position.

[ImaginalDisc]

Because people are not machines. While reality may not bend to feelings, people do. A well presented position includes both facts and a non-confrontational, charitable position.

I really have no idea how to apply this. What would be a "well presented position" that "includes both facts and a non-confrontationa, charitable position" to address belief in say, Santa Claus?

[Wings]

Address him on the facts, such as the beginnings of the myth from Saint Nicholas. Ask him questions to get him to explore his belief. And avoid personal attacks, personal judgements and derogatory comments.

The main point is to keep the person feeling open and communicative, we don't have to prove him wrong, all we have to do is help him to continually engage the holes in his belief.

This is how feelings are more important than facts, because if you can get them to feel open and comfortable, you have a better chance of making your point and getting him to take into consideration your facts. How they feel does affect how much consideration they will take for your own presentations.

[jimbob]

From a more practical standpoint, we can be glad that water doesn't remember being urine, and poison all of us at once. By the basic principles of homeopathy, the first fish to pee in the ocean would have killed all the life in the ocean.

I wonder how much common sense can counteract the woo?

Surely the first fish to pee in the ocean would have protected against the effects of kidney failure...

marketing opportunity: Stop kidney dialysis, just get patients to drink seawater.



As I see it the homeopathic "logic" of "like cures like" works like this:

Disease x gives me a fever, so does poison y.

A lot of poison y gives me a worse fever than a little...

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/icons/icon3.gif
If I had half as much then the fever would be half as strong.

If I had a millionth it would be a millionth as strong, whcih would be almost a cure.

Somewhere in the "reasoning" they seem to stop thinking that it is the additional fever that is being reduced, and think it is the original fever caused by the disease...

Anyway, most homeopaths don't seem to realise that, as they were commenting on how dangerous it was for the Belgian Skeptics to drink homepathic arsenic (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/belgium.html).

If they knew their own doctrine, on the basis that like cures like, and that the symptoms of ingesting arsenic is death, then homeopathic arsenic should be a cure for death...


Back to the OP.
I'd advise trying to find some common ground, maybe by pointing out the business margins on homeopathic "remedies".

Remember that many practitioners are sincere.

[ImaginalDisc]

Address him on the facts, such as the beginnings of the myth from Saint Nicholas. Ask him questions to get him to explore his belief. And avoid personal attacks, personal judgements and derogatory comments.

The main point is to keep the person feeling open and communicative, we don't have to prove him wrong, all we have to do is help him to continually engage the holes in his belief.

This is how feelings are more important than facts, because if you can get them to feel open and comfortable, you have a better chance of making your point and getting him to take into consideration your facts. How they feel does affect how much consideration they will take for your own presentations.

That's a set of facts which contradict the claim that there is a Santa Claus. What do feelings have to do with that?

[Wings]

I get the feeling we might be thinking of different things.

I'm referring not to the claim itself, but to the person making the claim and how that person's feelings on the approach skeptic's take can affect that person's judgement on the claim.

[ImaginalDisc]

I get the feeling we might be thinking of different things.

I'm referring not to the claim itself, but to the person making the claim and how that person's feelings on the approach skeptic's take can affect that person's judgement on the claim.

Oh, then yeah, we were talking past one another. I was referring to the advice of Ms. McLaren in VanillaCone's linked article.

The problem is this: In my culture, you can't openly attack anyone or their character, and you can't use truly focused skepticism. In my culture, personal attacks are considered an example of emotional imbalance (where your emotions control you), while deep skepticism is considered a form of mental imbalance (where your intellect controls you). Both behaviors are serious cultural no-nos, because both the emotions and the intellect are considered troublesome areas of the psyche that do very little but keep one away from the (supposedly) true and meaningful realm of spirit.

Now, I can understand that respecting a person's beliefs makes them more inclined to like you and listen to you, but I have no respect at all for a world view that is antithetical to higher reasoning and which gives weight to feelings in matters of fact.

Santa Claus might make people feel good, but only an idiot, or a New Ager, would take that nice feeling as sufficient evidence to override the evidence which discredits belief in Santa Claus.

[VanillaCone]

Now, I can understand that respecting a person's beliefs makes them more inclined to like you and listen to you, but I have no respect at all for a world view that is antithetical to higher reasoning and which gives weight to feelings in matters of fact.

Santa Claus might make people feel good, but only an idiot, or a New Ager, would take that nice feeling as sufficient evidence to override the evidence which discredits belief in Santa Claus.

I don't think McLaren is saying you should agree -- or pretend to agree -- with any of the woo's beliefs. She's saying that you need to consider how the minds of your audience process information if you hope to make an effective argument. As I stated in an earlier post, this information is only useful if you are interested in helping woo believers see the light. Many skeptics aren't really interested in doing that. Some people just think it's fun to argue with someone who is deluded. And that's OK I guess.

Just to illustrate my point, I will respond to your post again, making the same points, but with no consideration for your feelings.

Why are you not getting what McLaren is trying to say? It has nothing to do with respecting people's beliefs. It's about respecting people. Believe it or not, woo believers are also human. The whole point of this thread is how to talk to them in an effective way, but if you want to go on thinking they are filthy dogs and not worthy of your effort, then just don't talk to them at all.

See the difference?

[Cuddles]

As I see it the homeopathic "logic" of "like cures like" works like this:

Disease x gives me a fever, so does poison y.

A lot of poison y gives me a worse fever than a little...

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/icons/icon3.gif
If I had half as much then the fever would be half as strong.

If I had a millionth it would be a millionth as strong, whcih would be almost a cure.

Somewhere in the "reasoning" they seem to stop thinking that it is the additional fever that is being reduced, and think it is the original fever caused by the disease...

Not quite. The original idea behind homeopathy is that illness is caused by "imbalances" in the body. Different imbalances combine with each other, but imbalances that cause the same symptoms will only express the newest one, with the older ones disappearing. So, for example, if you had a bad stomach and then got a headache you would suffer from both, but if you already had a headache and then caught something else that also gave you a headache, when you recovered from the newer one you would be cured of both.

The idea then is to give the patient something that causes exactly the same symptoms that they are already suffering. The introduced symptoms will override the existing ones, then when you stop taking the medicine all the symptoms will be gone. This is where the idea of "provings" comes from, since it is important to match all the symptoms exactly, and this can only be done on an individual basis.

The idea of dilution is not actually a real part of homeopathy at all. It was only invented because Hannehman realised that actually giving people doses of poison large enough to cause symptoms and so came up with the idea of diluting it. Since this was before atomic theory, no-one knew about Avogadro's number and so the fundamental absurdity of such extreme dilutions was not apparent.

Anyway, most homeopaths don't seem to realise that, as they were commenting on how dangerous it was for the Belgian Skeptics to drink homepathic arsenic (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/belgium.html).

If they knew their own doctrine, on the basis that like cures like, and that the symptoms of ingesting arsenic is death, then homeopathic arsenic should be a cure for death...

It's a sad fact that most homeopaths seem to have absolutely no idea what homeopathy actually is. While Hannehman's original work is generally held as absolutely correct and is pretty much the be-all and end-all of homeopathy, no-one actually follows it. To start with, all homeopathy absolutely must be specifically tailored to the individual's symptoms, yet homeopaths happily mass-produce generic remedies, in direct contradiction to the fundamental principle they claim to follow. Also, the dilution and succusion are supposed to be done in specific ways which are completely ignored. For example, the remedies are not supposed to be mixed at all, they are supposed to be tapped a few times on a bible.

Basically, every single argument about homeopathy is just an exercies in straw men and moving goal posts. Homeopaths claim to be doing one thing, but what they actually do has pretty much nothing to do with what they claim, and all the "science" that is done has absolutely nothing to do with actual homeopathy.

The only actual principle of homeopathy is that inducing symptoms in a person overrides any symptoms that were already present. All the rest is just window dressing. All the nonsense about dilution and memory is irrelevant. The whole principle behind homeopathy was proven to be nonsense with the advent of germ theory.

In regards to the OP, the best way to educate someone about homeopathy is to teach them what it actually is. Most people can see for themselves just how silly it is once they actually know what homeopathy really claims.

[ImaginalDisc]

Why are you not getting what McLaren is trying to say? It has nothing to do with respecting people's beliefs. It's about respecting people. Believe it or not, woo believers are also human. The whole point of this thread is how to talk to them in an effective way, but if you want to go on thinking they are filthy dogs and not worthy of your effort, then just don't talk to them at all.

See the difference?

I think you're missing her point. She is saying that even using facts at all is antitheical to the New Age mind, because the intellect is "bad."

[VanillaCone]

I think you're missing her point. She is saying that even using facts at all is antitheical to the New Age mind, because the intellect is "bad."

I took it to mean that basing an argument only on facts, without consideration for the emotional sensitivity of the listener, would more likely upset them than persuade them. Still, it's such an uphill battle that it may simply not matter how one approaches such discussions. That doesn't change the fact that a lot of skeptics openly use derogatory language and exhibit impatience and disdain when addressing anti-science believers. Which, as I said before, is their right. But they should be aware that such an approach reduces the chance of making a positive impact from slim to none.