Debating with Scientific Illiterates...

The BBQ Pit
1

So recently on a different forum, I was having a debate on Near-Death Experiences and the soul. It was going pretty well until I started bringing up some of the science behind it; the underlying neuroscience and psychology that is directly related to the topic. The person I was debating with had no idea what I was talking about. He seemed to not even understand the concept of a nervous system, or how the body reacts to stimuli during sleep. He completely failed to understand fairly simply psychological concepts such as cold reading and Deja-Vus. And he insisted that they were beside the point when they were the point.

In other discussions on other forums, I have seen people debate about economics who think that it’s impossible for the government to create jobs through spending. I have seen people debate evolution and actually use the term “kind” without giving a definition for it. I have seen people debate vaccination without understanding what a problematic dosage of mercury is. I have seen people debate global warming without understanding how the greenhouse effect works or denying it outright. And slowly but surely, it’s pissing me off.

Look, I know we can’t all be experts at everything. But if you’re coming into a topic, the least that can be expected of you is a basic understanding of the topic at hand. Especially if you’re going against the scientific grain, you need to understand what the hell you’re talking about. I don’t care about your philosophical arguments in regards to the topic or the number of things that don’t add up; if you show off stunning ignorance in regards to the science involved and will wave off the opinions of the experts in the field due to this, you’re an idiot and you have no place within the discussion. :mad:

2

I feel your pain, but I don’t have a perfect solution.

3

I challenge your junk science assumption of the “solution” phenomenon. Instead, I believe in the Bible and Intelligent Mixing.

4

Wait, were you debating someone whose user name is a varation on Leroy Kattein, probably Lekatt?

5

Debating with Scientific Illiterates…

Don’t.

Next question?

6

I feel you. I totally feel you.

What I’ve learned, but haven’t mastered, is that there is a meta-debate going on, and if I can address that appropriately, sometimes, I can get the other person to consider the surface topic.

The meta-debate usually goes something like this:

Illogical Denial Person: I’m scared! And angry!

Logical Person: Hey, I have facts for you! They are scary and will make you more angry!

Illogical Denial Person: I’m really scared! And really angry!

Logical Person: You make no sense! Facts are good! Now I am angry!

Illogical Denial Person: SCARED! ANGRY!

Logical Person: You have no facts! You are bad! I angry-hate you!

Illogical Denial Person: FUCK YOU!
There have been just a couple of times I’ve been able to shift the meta-debate over to something more like this:

Illogical Denial Person: I am scared! And angry!

Logical Person: Boy, I hear you! It’s a scary, angry world!

Illogical Denial Person: We are scared! And angry!

Logical Person: Actually, I learned this “fact” thing, and while it sounds scary, I think it makes things a little less scary and easier to deal with.

Illogical Denial Person: . . . scared . . . angry . . .

Logical Person: I know! Scary and angry is scary and angry. You remember that scary, angry thing that was defeated with Fact Thingie 1, Fact Thingie 2, and Fact Thingie 3? I like facts! Facts make angry scary go away!

Illogical Denial Person: . . . suspicious . . .

Logical Person: I totally agree. Suspicious stuff is suspicious. But, remember that time it turned out that suspicious stuff was really totally okay?

Illogical Denial Person: . . . threatened . . .

Logical Person: Hey, it’s been great talking to you! I like hearing other (scared and angry) points of view. I’m going to stop bugging you now.
Like I said, learned, not mastered. I got my mom, who is very uncomfortable with gay marriage and homosexuals in general to reconsider her stance on gay marriage by acknowledging that the world was a scary, angry place, and it felt like everything was changing too fast.

Just that, just agreeing with her on her emotional response, helped her feel less threatened, and while she’s not pro-gay marriage, she’s no longer anti-gay marriage. Give me another five years, and I might just bring her completely around on the topic.

7

I love you.

8

Or at least read the Wikipedia article and some Google results – which will touch on all the criticisms and controversies as well as counter-criticisms. It’s really easy to educate yourself about the basics these days, if you’re have basic computer literacy and basic, well, literacy.

9

This seems like yet another situation that is understandable through the Dunning-Kruger effect.
The basic problem is that stupid people are too stupid to understand how very stupid they are. This leads them to take strong stances on things they have no idea about and vehemently defend them, whereas a slightly less stupid person would have the glimmer of insight to realize they have no idea what’s going on and back down.
There is no sense in trying to reason with the stupid. Someone has to be on the bad side of the bell curve. If you want to try to convince people, save your efforts for the slightly less stupid who might be capable of getting something out of it.
To look at things more compassionately though:
I think another issue that’s involved with the near death experience issue is that many people desperately want to believe in an afterlife. For example, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that my future mother in law became very religious after one of her children died. To stay sane and enjoy life, she desperately needs to believe that someday she will see her child again.
For anyone who has had someone they loved died, I think that facing the idea that the person is truly, completely gone is a horrible thing to have to accept (whether you think it’s true or not has no bearing on the fact that it’s an awful thing). I think there are a lot of people in situations like that. Those kind of people will fight hard against any evidence they might be wrong. The world is a worse place for them if they admit it might not be true.

10

@Princhester: Nah, that wasn’t him.

Of course, this is what makes this really pathetic. Sometimes I actually do try to spoon-feed them the answers, but they decided “Nah, not gonna happen”. That really pisses me off.

100% truth here.

11

whenever I hear somebody start spouting off anti-science bullshit, I just nod my head and find an opportunity to walk away…

I commend you for trying though.

12

This is why I try not to engage with global warming deniers. If you deny global warming, you’re a fucking moron. If you think the earth has cooled since 1997, you’re a double fucking moron. If you think “Climategate” disproves anything, you’re a triple fucking moron with whipped cream.

13

Those “experts” the media cite are either paid off by big corporations or the government. I’ve got a list of science people who say otherwise. You’ve just got to do your own research. Science has been wrong before.They don’t want us to know. Lots of people say they’ve been helped.

You can’t prove me wrong.

And all you assholes should stop calling us names.

14

I agree. This is why science should not be taught by the media. This is why you don’t cite Fox News, but rather PubMed or Arxiv. The media is sensationalist, and as such will almost always get a scientific story dead wrong unless it’s the kind of issue you really can’t fumble at all, like this most recent story of the guy funded by the Koch Brothers.

This is where I start wondering what you’re responding to… You mean people who go against the grain? No offense, but in most fields that are considered “controversial” nowadays (Evolution, Climate Change, etc.) those people tend to be incredibly fringe and commonly completely full of shit.

Wait what? I’m all for doing your own research, but claiming “they don’t want us to know” is pure bollocks. But what’s worse, you seem to be conflating individual scientists/fields of research with science itself. Newsflash: it’s not as common as you think, and when people are wrong in science, they tend to admit it pretty fast. Those who don’t are considered fringe nutcases like Michael Behe and Kary Mullis.

What is this referring to? It sounds like someone trying to proselytize towards Christianity or something.

Protip: saying this means you’re probably wrong.

Define “us”. You mean the scientific illiterates? The conspiracy theorists? What? This post is really incoherent; it feels like context is missing.

15

Heh. You’re being whooshed.

16

Global warming is Al Gore’s fault. Before him, it didn’t even exist.

17

Way to bite, B.P.C.

18

In short (and in a nod to another thread)

“It is a smart man that knows what he doesn’t know”

I find that all the time, the really intelligent people can often

A) sum up their thoughts in a clear and concise way
B) admit readily when they are outside of their knowledge.

It maybe that really smart people feel more secure in their abilities so admitting their ignorance doesn’t shake them so much.

19

Here’s what the real problem is:

Science is hard. :frowning:

20

Aw, I love you too. :smiley: