It’s a departure, but it’s not.
What if the change does not appreciably change my life in terms of happiness or relationships? What if it’s a net negative (or I think it will be)? Why be logical?
(I do agree with you, but I’m trying to get to the central issue. It’s an emotionally based value… isn’t it?)
Throw a ton (literal) of elephant dung on a Mercedes. Still want the car? I mean… all you have to do is wash it really well…
But it was packaged REALLY poorly.
Yes, nonlogical arguments can be presented horribly too. One needn’t look far to see that too. “Turn or burn” comes to mind.
So if they believe what Grandma told them at age 3, or what the aliens told them during a rectal probe, how would that change your approach?
You can try to persuade by logic. Or you can try to discredit the source of their ‘knowledge’. Or you can try to position the source of your knowledge as more credible than theirs, so they will change their mind based on the more ‘powerful’ source.
I see any or all of these routes as being essentially logical in nature.
I’m not quite getting this. I didn’t mean to suggest that every decision you make must necessarily be based on logic. If you want to choose which person to invite out to dinner, far be it from me to suggest that “I like that one better” isn’t a perfectly good reason, and may not have any logical underpinning at all.
But we have been talking about how to persuade others, who for the sake of arguement we both agree are ‘wrong’.
Fair enough. My point, or hope, or question is this… there is no good way to convince a person that logic should trump feeling on certain issues. And if they think their life might be worsened by agreeing - why agree? Is the highest purpose of life to get as much right before you die?
I’m not sure it is.
So why should a person be logical on some issue of ranging consequence - like evolution? If that gets in the way of their faith, why chose logic? I’m not being an apologist for faith, I’m saying that those who esteem logic are persuaded by it. Those who need more, need more. Point is, it’s the emotional attachment to logic that changes how a person feels. And that logic latches onto evidence. It isn’t logic DIRECTLY, it’s logic indirectly.
I freely agree that there are some areas of the human experience where logic is only marginally applicable, at best. Human relationships and interactions, at the least, and I’m failing to think of others at the moment. So please feel free to suggest others.
But what decisions would someone make in these areas that you would judge as ‘wrong’? Maybe you want your daughter to stop dating a guy – he’s rude, doesn’t show her or you any respect or consideration, etc… Well, those are logical reason why you don’t want her with them. You could I suppose argue, “I just don’t like him”, but how well do you think that would work? Another non-logical arguement would be, “If you keep seeing him, that will mean you don’t love me any more, and we will no longer be parent and child.” That might actually work, but IMO it would be a horribly emotionally manipulative tactic, a kind of desperate tack if all logical arguement had already failed.
What I’m getting at is that while there are areas not especially amenable to logic, these areas are also by and large beyond judgement in terms or right or wrong, good or bad. Once you decide judgement is relevant, you are more or less forced into a logical framework to justify your outcome. Otherwise you are left with no better arguement than, “It’s bad because I don’t like it”. This is a perfectly valid feeling to have, and even to believe in, but it’s a terrible basis on which to change someone else’s mind.
Can you give me an example of someone who believes something to two of us would agree is wrong or incorrect, and and how you could persuade them to correct this view without logic, or largely without it?
Again, for this what other form of arguement could you make? The theory of evolution is based pretty much entirely on the logical working of the natural world. Are you suggesting that people are actually and deliberately rejecting the very concept using logic to reach their conclusions?
I don’t know your background well enough to know where we might agree on a point. I’d be happy to try. I can list a few things and if you find a point of agreement, we can work from there.
I consider evolution a fact. I am an atheist (that’s 50-50 logic and emotion). I consider morality to be emergent from the social instincts in an animal and not specific to humans - just more recognizable in ourselves.
My larger point is that logic, alone, won’t persuade. And that… the degree to which logic IS persuasive is oft proportionate to their emotional attachment to logic.
Let me know if you find a point of agreement. If not… we can give it another whirl.
It depends on the premises. If I know that I experience morality. Know it down deep - emotionally and intellectually - and you provide another framework for understanding my origins and it doesn’t answer the question of where my sense of morality comes from… it’s not perfect logic, no. But it is a form of logic. If that is considered a given, and needs an answer before a person can be persuaded… it’s not unlike theoretical physics and competing theories. I won’t leave my theory until you explain why x is true. Once you do that, I’m more persuadable.
That’s all.
They are working from the wrong premises, but using logic, more or less, from there. Or that’s how I see it.
I under and agree with the bolded part, but as to the rest, well, I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t understand the relevance to trying to convince someone to change their mind about something – unless it is their moral code, which is something I probably wouldn’t try in the first place.
I’m an atheist and I accept evolution as well. You want to pick making a christian fundamentalist accept evolution? That’s a large task – you’ll have to undermine a good part of the whole belief system to accomplish it.
I completely agree. And it certainly wouldn’t happen in a conversation - or even three. Or even a year. In fact all I’d usually even consider attempting is seeing if they are open to a pluralistic society or feel a need to make sure everyone sees God from their angle - and/or should be legislated on some behavior relevant mostly due to their text of choice.
I’m a former theist. I do understand how a person comes to be that way, and how… at a certain point the problem for me wasn’t logical. It was emotional. There was an understood, implicit fact that morality cannot happen independent of God. That’s wrong. Naturally. But I had to find the answer to that question, on my own, before I could loosen that last knot and feel right about leaving the church.
To our demo… sigh. I’ve kind of botched this point because I didn’t consistently take my own advice.
I owe a few people apologies.
In my right mind, I’d listen to their beliefs for a while. At some point, usually, politeness and confidence will lead them to ask me mine. I will typically explain that I used to be Christian and of a fundamentalist inclination. That at a certain point I just didn’t feel like it worked anymore. And then I explain the basic concept. While I’m going to lay this out in a logical format, I tend to see each point as more of an emotional point than a factual or logical one. Maybe that’s because at one point in life - they very much were.
According to Christian theology:
God made the earth in six days.
God made man out of clay and breathed life into him.
God wants fellowship with all of us - if we are willing to line up with his will.
God made a universe that says its billions of years old, and an earth that says we descended from a progenitor of the apes.
At that point, somewhere, God is a liar. The only logic I see (and I could be wrong) is pointing out the lie. After that the emotions kick back in and people have to resolve the competing emotions of disbelief, pain, anger, confusion or whatever - if they chose to really look. According to the logic, God might even specifically NOT want fellowship.
From there I narrate how I stopped believing in a Christian god. Not out of anger, but because it no longer made sense. That I still needed to find a source for morality as all my upbringing had dictated I wouldn’t have one, but… I still knew right from wrong and damned if evolution isn’t a compelling theory.
So I looked at how morality would emerge in a social creature over prolonged lengths of time. I saw that with even just a LITTLE mutation in every other generation or so, eventually a species could get more complicated, not just in form, but in how it arranges its society. That anger does serve a purpose, as does guilt, shame, love, compassion, altruism, etc. They all get us to act in ways that benefit the “tribe.” And all help ensure the survival of the creature and the species.
They’d ask questions. I’d, without pandering, explain that I was incredulous at one point, too. That even though I loved science, I had heard a lot of science from the pulpit. And over time I came to realize that the pulpit science wasn’t real science - it was cherry picked, exaggerated, or refuted already. And that only deepened my mistrust, and it made the pulpit look… desperate. And like a liar. I’d point out that, “no, it’s not exactly like putting all the parts for a watch in a bag.” And how this is misframed because people aren’t looking at the dynamic. All the while relating in an emotional way (not crying, just very open).
That under it all, we’re all trying to find the uncaused cause. What made us what we are? Why are we here? What do we do with our time here? How do we find happiness? Why do we hurt? These are the questions we all grapple with. I’m no different. I found, through empirical data, that I can answer those questions without needing faith. Not really.
And the more I did that, the more a God doesn’t make sense.
Somewhere in there, while a fundamentalist might disagree, they will at least see that this is a sincere belief, an honest one, and one come to with deliberation and not the anger or hostility they might like to attribute to an atheist.
I guess I’m saying this all weird, but when you explain evolution in the “micro” and do so without all the fancy claptrap and just show that it makes sense… then point out to having all the time in the world… it resonates. They may turn off the resonance, but for a second, it sticks. That’s long enough. This sounds like logic, and to a degree it is, but… it’s something someone with only emotional reasoning can get, imo. Emotional reasoning still has true/false statements…
I can appreciate where you’re coming from, but from my POV your arguements are just chock full of logic. It’s all about “making sense” and becoming aware of inconsistancies and contradictions. What you’re essentially saying is that your powers of reason eventually allowed you to overcome your blind-faith acceptance of dogma.
Which is all well and good, and not too far from my route from Catholicism to atheism, but the gist of it is that faith alone isn’t sufficient to support a world view.
No; that you should spend money at McDonalds is an assertion, or statement. The other things you pointed out are arguments supporting this assertion. This is where I think you’re getting confused; you make an assertion and try to prove it with arguments. An argument, by definition, supports an assertion.
Black people like McDonald’s is an assertion. Proportionally more black people go to McDonald’s than those of other ethnicities do is an argument for that assertion. Asians hate McDonald’s is not an argument because I have not offered any grounds for my belief in it.
I think the main problem is that the tool of logic is not taught on a regular or consistant basis. It’s like being told that an impact wrench can make changing tires a lot easier, but if no one ever shows you how to use one and you don’t own one, you’ll never make use of it.
The failure to educate people at a young age regarding logical fallacies in arguments makes logic seem mysterious and untrustworthy to people who aren’t familiar with it.
I blame the parents and schools.
The point ultimately is that emotional arguments work so well largely because most people simply do not have the tools to understand how they’re being manipulated. In the end the strongest argument is almost always “It’s for the children!” It’s not logic’s failing that causes this, but rather the educational failing.
To blame logic for people believing emotional arguments is kinda like blaming physics because someone didn’t understand gravity and jumped off a cliff thinking they could fly.
-Eben
I know. I think that those logical steps, however, can be fed through an emotional reasoning engine - and some of the similar results will bear out. People have relatives. A son or daughter, a niece or nephew, uncle… or at least certainly parents. They’ll “get” the mutation/difference angle, usually, without too much logic. It’s a difference they have felt. And they can imagine everyone feeling that way. Over generations. I’m simplifying and you have a point.
And somewhere in all of this people are seeing fit to say that persuasion means argument… the point feels like it’s getting lost. But not on you.
Things can “make sense” on an emotional level, too. My point really is getting lost. And when that happens it means I either don’t have something straight or have communicated poorly.
I see that a lot has happened in this thread since I last signed in, but I did want to address this.
I apologize that my post came off as accusatory. I was trying to convey that although it isn’t (always) the fault of the person speaking if their audience isn’t capable of understanding clear logic, I still think it’s incumbent upon that person to make their argument persuasive as well as factual.
I think a few things are happening here. First, the OP wasn’t clear enough. Second, the defenders of logic are defending logic - on logic’s turf. And I like that. I think it helps.
I also think that the definition of an “argument” is being overly narrowed… I think. Implicit in the commercial are arguments of a sort. They are happy because… They are building a bond because… And McDonalds is a brand that, the world over, seldom has to introduce itself. It gets to rest on the fact that people know them, and the atmosphere, and the food. They let you fill in some of the gaps.
They are happier because they are all eating reasonably cheap, somewhat decent food in a kid friendly atmosphere. The brand gets to work on a near unconscious level, imo.
BUT that’s kind of a distraction. The point is persuasion. And while I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a person persuaded without an argument (a reason why) what an argument is or isn’t, seems secondary. And if anyone seems to think that to be persuasive is to offer an argument… then why does McDonalds persuade so well with their commercials?
Even an unsupported lie, repeated enough, becomes persuasive. I mean… Iraq caused 9/11 right? Well… no. But a lot of people thought so. Some still do. Why? They trusted the brand.
How would we define that phenomenon? People were persuaded. And the point to this thread is persuasion. I’m not pretending to have the answers. If I did this thread would have flowed very differently, if at all.
I’m inclined to agree and disagree.
I was certainly taught at home, at school, and in games how to think logically. I also think it was easier to invest that time on me. Or on you. Or on everyone who has participated in this thread. We aren’t dull.
I think there are kids that need more work just to get their grammar to a certain point. To get to where ax+by equals c can make sense to them. It’s kind of like a curve, the quicker you get one thing, the more other stuff you get shown, the more other stuff you get shown being sharp to start with, that gets absorbed quicker. It’s almost more geometric than it is arithmetic in its growth, I’d think.
All that to say, they can do better. We can all do better. Time and resources are finite. I have three kids. Two of them, I think, will get logic on a near intuitive level and being sharp will have the time to hone that further, another… not so much. But there’s the same level of exposure. And she’s no slouch.
P.S. That sounds a bit gender biased. I’ve not raised them that way in the least. It just sort of happened. And anecdote<>data, I know.
There’s most certainly an ability bias in there, not a gender one. My complaint isn’t so much that logic isn’t taught enough, but rather that unless one takes a course on it in college, it isn’t taught at all.
That being said, I still make decisions on emotion that I should be making based on logic and therefor doing the wrong thing. It drives me crazy. But in the end I understand that it’s my own fault for ignoring the logic and not that God hates me or anything.
Using emotive language to be persuasive works, but always turns the warning bells on for me, and should for other people too. As soon as someone talks about “for the children,” “for your own good,” “because mother nature likes it,” or other purely emotive arguments, everyone should start looking for the hook under the worm. The worm’s still plenty tasty, but one should be aware of what one’s biting into.
-Eben