When we fight ignorance, how confrontational do we need to be?

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Charger]
Confrontation is not a very practical method to educate people. It only serves to feed the ego of the aggressor, but has the negative byproduct of triggering the defense mechanism, often in the form of spite, of the recipient.

In other words, the sky never looks more red than when someone says, “The sky is blue, dumbass!”
[/QUOTE]

Confrontation doesn’t have to include “dumbass” or any other ridicule or hostility.
Simply presenting factual information that shows their notions about X are incorrect is still confrontation. Confrontation is necessary to education. It’s the style of that confrontation that determines it’s effectiveness. That, and the willingness of the people involved to actually learn something.

62

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
You might want to rethink that. Surely, there are more and less confrontational ways to present your POV. Indeed, there are experts in the fine art of diplomatic rhetoric: among those methods are repetition, humor, diversion and explicit consideration of opposing view- seeing and describing both sides of an issue.

Following Revenant Threshold, one should guard against, or at least be aware of, the self-indulgent pleasures of a more dominant approach, if one is to persuade. Then again, higher rhetorical intensity can certainly have its place from time to time.
[/QUOTE]

I agree, however being less confrontational rather than more, still makes confrontation an important component yes? I think it’s a matter of style. Pointing out someone’s ignorance about a certain subject is not insulting them if your manner suggests the desire illuminate rather than ridicule. Ignorance only means being unaware of certain facts. It doesn’t mean stupid or mentally inferior. Very learned educated men can be ignorant in areas they’ve never studied. Have a Havard professor go work in the woods with my Grandfather who never got past the sixth grade and he’ll find out he’s woefully ignorant by comparison concerning the practical aspects of harvesting trees for lumber.

Fighting ignorance through confrontation does not have to equate with stroking the ego by feeling mentally superior. When both parties work at removing the egotistical need to “win” the argument and are willing to listen and learn from each other, we can successfully fight ignorance. That still requires confrontation.

63

I agree with your 2 posts, cosmodan, but the OP is using a narrower definition of confrontation.

Crisp language certainly has its place. But we should be aware that ego considerations tend to make many of us slam our counterparts more than is optimal.

Well outside of the SDMB, it’s called, “Getting along”, which can do a world of good.

But in this forum, we’re here to fight ignorance. Still, methinks it isn’t hard to tone down one’s posts. The tradeoff that I alluded to above involves clarity: it’s easy to present facts politely, harder to do so in a way that’s both polite and punchy.

64

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
I agree with your 2 posts, cosmodan, but the OP is using a narrower definition of confrontation.
[/QUOTE]

I honestly don’t see where you’re getting this from. I don’t see any definition in the OP. I see a request for clarity about where the lines are drawn. That’s what I attempted to address.

I believe I just said that. It appears we agree on this.

65

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Confrontation doesn’t have to include “dumbass” or any other ridicule or hostility.
Simply presenting factual information that shows their notions about X are incorrect is still confrontation. Confrontation is necessary to education. It’s the style of that confrontation that determines it’s effectiveness. That, and the willingness of the people involved to actually learn something.
[/QUOTE]

Excellent point. Well said and demonstrated. I guess people tend to think of hostility when confronted with the word “confrontation.” I guess it would be hard to have a fighting chance against ignorance if we sugar-coated everything. “Persuading ignorance to back off” doesn’t have the same punch.

66

[QUOTE=Charger]
Excellent point. Well said and demonstrated. I guess people tend to think of hostility when confronted with the word “confrontation.” I guess it would be hard to have a fighting chance against ignorance if we sugar-coated everything. “Persuading ignorance to back off” doesn’t have the same punch.
[/QUOTE]

If people are determined to believe their false notions are correct and refuse to be persuaded by facts then I think further confrontation is useless. I’m not sure what or where the switch is in our brains or emotions that allow us to let go of false notions but it appears the individual has to be willing to throw it for themselves. Sometimes it is the person trying to fight ignorance that needs to let go of the fight, at least temporarily. We can be persistent in presenting the facts and offering a polite “I don’t think that’s what the facts indicate.”

I think it’s also important to be willing to learn{being aware of our own potential ignorance} and make a sincere effort at understanding the persons position instead of just hammering home our own.

Other times it may be necessary to fight ignorance by directly and aggressively confronting someone who is deliberately and aggressively trying to spread it. It may be necessary to call bullshit what it is for the sake of the audience rather than the individual.

67

Then, naturally, you have SACRED ignorance. The very worst sort. I have no respect for that.

As for me, I’m perfectly comfortable admitting ignorance of ‘great questions’ about whether there’s an all-powerful being, or even marshmallow people on a moon orbiting a gas giant in a solar system in a different galaxy.

But I’m an apathetic agnostic. I don’t know, I don’t care… and I have a strong suspicion that you don’t know, either.

What I find disturbing is when people fight over a ‘SACRED’ thing, they will literally kill, slaughter, even practice genocide over what looks to me like utter B.S. on both sides.

No matter how many people believed the Earth was the center of the universe, was flat, or that evolution or even that self assembly of chemical elements is ‘impossible’, they ultimately turn out to be wrong.

Electronics is a theory, too. Now, maybe it could be itty-bitty little demons on unicycles that cause the observed effects that have been quantified and built on over the last couple of centuries. The model we have is not reality. Reality is reality, and the model is the model we used to model reality. Your computer booted up and here you are online. The model ‘works’. It’s not necessarily correct. It doesn’t have to be. It only needs to do the job.

If some new discovery overturns electronics as we understand them so far, SUPER! We learn a lot of new things.

It sure beats making something up about thunder and gods, and then killing anybody who disagrees.

As cosmosdan (and others) point out, the problem with that sort of person is this: NOTHING WILL EVER GET THROUGH TO THEM.

So in that case, ridicule and a sense of humor works for me. I laugh, other people laugh, and the witnessing person never ‘gets it’, though they do turn funny colors and say entertaining things in their impotent rage.

68

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I honestly don’t see where you’re getting this from. I don’t see any definition in the OP. I see a request for clarity about where the lines are drawn. That’s what I attempted to address.
[/QUOTE]
Thinking it over, I like your treatment better. I retract on this narrow point. And yeah, there’s not a lot of space between our POVs.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I’m not sure what or where the switch is in our brains or emotions that allow us to let go of false notions but it appears the individual has to be willing to throw it for themselves.
[/quote]
In the marketplace we pay an immediate price for our bad decisions. In the voting booth, our individual actions are without consequence, since few races are decided on the basis of one vote and when they are the deciding ballot is cast by the judiciary. Or so claimith Bryan Caplan. Then again, the fact that Consumer Reports is less than wildly popular suggests to me that many purchase decisions are the result of influences other than sweet reason.

69

I don’t think you have to be abusive - but you don’t have to ‘tolerate’ idiocy.

For example, a lot of people will respond to tales of ghosts or ESP or new age nuttiness by non-confrontationally saying, “Well, you never know… Who’s to say what’s true or not?” This is essentially validating the other person’s wacky beliefs, and reinforcing them.

But you can respond to someone who tells you they can predict the future or see dead people by saying, “I’m sorry, but I simply don’t believe that. I don’t think you’re lying - the brain has lots of ways to trick you into believing these things, such as confirmation bias. But no one has ever been able to dredge up a shred of hard evidence that such things are possible, so it’s not reasonable to believe them.”

We knew a person a few years back who was convinced she was psychic. In fact, she charged people for ‘readings’. But every time she told me about her psychic powers, I’d calmly and politely respond with a statement of disbelief. She got more and more insistent on demanding that I believe she had these powers, and I would just respond with another skeptical comment. This was our last conversation:

Her: “I do have the ability to tell the future. Why won’t you believe me?”
Me: “Because I’ve seen no evidence of it.”
Her: “What do I have to do to convince you?”
Me: “Tell you what: Predict tomorrow’s lottery numbers.”
Her: “I will not use my ability for material gain!”
Me: “You charge for readings, don’t you?”
Her: “That’s different! I’m helping people!”
Me: “So then buy the ticket, and if you win give all the money to charity.”
Her: “<splutter>This is stupid!”
Me: “I’m sorry you feel that way, but if you want me to believe in this, the burden is on you to come up with evidence. Until you can do that, you’re wasting your time. Why don’t we drop this, and not talk of it any more?”

Her need to have the people around her validate her battiness led her to drop out of our social circle, and we stopped seeing her after that. But I hope that either I instilled a little doubt in her, or at the very least she’ll think twice about spouting her crap to other people for fear of being embarrassed.

Social pressure can be a valuable tool in keeping people thinking straight. Once you adopt an attitude that there are no wrong ideas and all opinions are equally valid, you allow a lot of idiocy to creep into the mainstream.

So yes, I think you should be confrontational. You don’t have to be a dick. You just have to stand up for reason, science, and logic. It’s under attack enough as it is, and you shouldn’t give up the fight or abandon the battleground.

70

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
I don’t think you have to be abusive - but you don’t have to ‘tolerate’ idiocy.

For example, a lot of people will respond to tales of ghosts or ESP or new age nuttiness by non-confrontationally saying, “Well, you never know… Who’s to say what’s true or not?” This is essentially validating the other person’s wacky beliefs, and reinforcing them.

But you can respond to someone who tells you they can predict the future or see dead people by saying, “I’m sorry, but I simply don’t believe that. I don’t think you’re lying - the brain has lots of ways to trick you into believing these things, such as confirmation bias. But no one has ever been able to dredge up a shred of hard evidence that such things are possible, so it’s not reasonable to believe them.”

We knew a person a few years back who was convinced she was psychic. In fact, she charged people for ‘readings’. But every time she told me about her psychic powers, I’d calmly and politely respond with a statement of disbelief. She got more and more insistent on demanding that I believe she had these powers, and I would just respond with another skeptical comment. This was our last conversation:

Her: “I do have the ability to tell the future. Why won’t you believe me?”
Me: “Because I’ve seen no evidence of it.”
Her: “What do I have to do to convince you?”
Me: “Tell you what: Predict tomorrow’s lottery numbers.”
Her: “I will not use my ability for material gain!”
Me: “You charge for readings, don’t you?”
Her: “That’s different! I’m helping people!”
Me: “So then buy the ticket, and if you win give all the money to charity.”
Her: “<splutter>This is stupid!”
Me: “I’m sorry you feel that way, but if you want me to believe in this, the burden is on you to come up with evidence. Until you can do that, you’re wasting your time. Why don’t we drop this, and not talk of it any more?”

Her need to have the people around her validate her battiness led her to drop out of our social circle, and we stopped seeing her after that. But I hope that either I instilled a little doubt in her, or at the very least she’ll think twice about spouting her crap to other people for fear of being embarrassed.

Social pressure can be a valuable tool in keeping people thinking straight. Once you adopt an attitude that there are no wrong ideas and all opinions are equally valid, you allow a lot of idiocy to creep into the mainstream.

So yes, I think you should be confrontational. You don’t have to be a dick. You just have to stand up for reason, science, and logic. It’s under attack enough as it is, and you shouldn’t give up the fight or abandon the battleground.
[/QUOTE]

This is a good example. People who try to push thier beliefs on others should accpet and expect some confrontation rather than a “well maybe” in the name of misguided politeness. You can be firm and steady without being sarcastic.

A confrontation has started between atheists and believers with The End of Faith, The God Delusion, and other books. I see it as a real plus in sifting the myth and unnessecary tradition from doctrines.

71

[QUOTE=RaftPeople]
I don’t know who you think you are, but post #36 was one of the best posts of this thread, and probably of any thread within the last 2 weeks, and anyone who didn’t like it simply has NO FREAKIN’ CLUE what they are talking about!
[/QUOTE]

If that was a joke, I thought it was really funny.

72

[QUOTE=j666]
If that was a joke, I thought it was really funny.
[/QUOTE]

Yes it was :slight_smile: