Psience - Skepticism

An Approach to Arguing with True-believers

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:32:00 -0400

Recently I've found myself often using a certain tactic during discussions with believers that seems to evoke interesting and sometimes amusing reactions. In my head, I've termed it the "pseudoswap" method, though I by no means claim stake to inventing it. It's really just a simple way to come up with effective analogies that can help you point out fallacious reasoning during discussions or debates.

The idea is to subtly probe the believer to find other pseudosciences to which they do not subscribe, and then draw comparisons between the arguments they are giving in support of their pseudoscience, to the arguments commonly made in support of the other pseudoscience.

For example, I stumbled upon this by accident when I was talking to my mom about some of her beliefs in various alternative medicine pseudosciences (such as energy healing and acupuncture). She made the comment that these ancient practices have been around for thousands of years in use by the Chinese, and if they didn't work, they wouldn't still be around today--implying that this proved their efficacy, so they didn't need to be tested in double-blind clinical trials. I asked her if she believed that the Holy Bible was the true word of God, to which she replied that she didn't. "Well," I said, "the Bible has been around for over a thousand years... If it wasn't the true word of God, why would people still be saying that it is today?"

She couldn't really answer that one, other than to say that the Bible had some good messages in it. I conceded this particular point, since I hadn't actually read the Bible at that time. I have since, and would say now that even that is quite debatable.

In later discussions with other non-religious true-believers, I have found pesudoswapping to be quite effective at either stumping them, or at least triggering highly amusing emotional responses and ad hominem attacks--either way, essentially winning the debate.

Another personal example is from a true-believer paranormal forum--the point was being put forward that most UFOs are "obviously intelligently controlled," implying that their movements, as described by witnesses, clearly cannot be explained by natural phenomena. I equated this to the arguments put forth by creationists to support the theory of intelligent design--simple appeals to ignorance, attributing something to an intelligence because of personal incredulity. This suggestion was met with hostility. Here's some excerpts:

Me: To say something was intelligently controlled is similar to the whole intelligent design/creationism versus evolution debate. Something that complex couldn't possibly have happened by chance, therefore God did it. Something that weird couldn't possibly happen naturally, therefore aliens did it. It's all very unscientific, unimaginative, and ultimately does not actually answer any questions.

Responder: It is not the same at all. You know that. You only made the analogy because the two concepts share a word. The similarity ends there. It can be shown that evolution happens naturally. It has not been shown that the more well-documented UFOs were natural. Furthermore, intelligent design appeals to some higher power to explain everything -- a power beyond the rules. Simply observing an object and determining if it is under control is not the same at all. Your argument is specious at best.

Me: I stand by my analogy. They are both appeals to ignorance--explaining something that you can't personally comprehend by attributing it to an intelligence.

Responder: What? This is not an appeal to ignorance. If I see a car driving on the street below me, it is an event in which I can safely assume the object is being controlled intelligently. If I see an airplane flying by, I can make the same assumption. But if I see a eliptical craft going at high speed, doing the same thing, then I am making and appeal to ignorance? And where do you get off saying I can't comprehend a UFO? For the record, I did see a UFO and it definitely behaved as it was under control. Man, you really are something.

Me: A Jehovah's Witness once used a similar argument to convince me of intelligent design. He said something along the lines of "If you were walking along the beach, and you saw a watch in the sand, it would be obvious that it was created, and thus had a creator. Now, look at living organisms. They are much more complex than a simple watch... clearly they must also have had a creator."

You just used the same argument for intelligent control of flying objects in the sky. You can't possibly imagine how what you saw, or how what some eye witness told you he saw, could possibly not be intelligently controlled. The Jehovah's Witness can't possibly imagine how something complex as a living organism could come about without being intelligently designed. It's the exact same fallacious argument.

Responder: That is not the same argument at all. You analogies always become insulting and of dubious value. I would rather not even discuss this with you anymore.

Me: Well, if you change your mind, I am still willing to hear arguments for why it's a bad analogy. You simply stating that it's not the same argument doesn't convince me... I personally can't see a difference. I do not believe it is possible to prove an intelligent force behind something in either case in the analogy.

And that was the end of the discussion with that particular person. As you can see, he was offended and insulted that I would equate his arguments with those of a creationist, since he obviously sees how creationist arguments are fallacious. Was my analogy a valid one? I think it was. Did I convince this believer? Probably not. Was it fun anyway? Sure!

The beauty of pseudoswapping is that believers in the paranormal are generally not religious, so drawing parallels between the pseudoscience and religion is almost a surefire way to illustrate the absurdity of a believer's arguments. All you need to do is identify which fallacy the believer is using, and then present the same fallacy in another (in this case, religious) context. The ultimate goal, of course, is not to piss him off, but rather to help him see the error in his thinking.

I suppose in a worst-case scenario, you might end up converting the believer to whatever religion you were drawing comparisons to... so pick a good one (assuming such a thing even exists).

April Fools Prank Roundup

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:52:03 -0400

It's that eye-rolling time of year again when would-be comedians around the web invoke dry chuckles from their viewers by posting fake announcements on their websites. Here's the best that I've found on various science, skeptical, and atheist websites:

Deep-Sea News covers the story about deep-sea squid invading the Mississippi river due to hurricanes causing an increase in water salinity.

In episode 88 of The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, Dr. Novella pranked his team of skeptical rogues during the Science or Fiction segment by claiming that Chinese scientists have devised a way to process Panda feces into edible wafers to help curb their country's hunger problems.

Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge gives us the real truth about semi-conductors.

Respectful Insolence shares a mailing list gag about chiropractic treatments fighting global warming

Parallel Divergence has a great post recounting an April Fool's story from the past involving lotto tickets and an extremely pissed off mom.

NoBeliefs.com has changed its name to Christianity Now, leaving us with this little gem:

Announcement: I know a lot of you freethinkers have been loyal to NoBeliefs.com but we're in for a big change. NoBeliefs.com has been bought out by Christianity NOW. Starting today, the articles and news items will be replaced by Chrisitan oriented subjects. The author of NoBeliefs.com has also converted to Christianity and has given his life to Jesus. He will help to transfer this site into God's good plan and to prepare for the Final Days. Hallelujah!

The Discover Institute revealed that the much-maligned Dr. Egnor was actually an invented personality created to take "gullible Darwinists" for a ride. There is speculation that this is simply their way of safely distancing themselves from the increasingly bizarre Egnor. Will we ever know the truth? Who cares?

[Update: It turns out that this April Fool's announcement was itself an April Fool's prank perpetrated by The Panda's Thumb. Nice one!]

Tetrapod Zoology gives us a couple of posts about rhinogradentians... small rodent-like mammals that walk around on their noses.

That's about all I can handle. For more (not necessarily science/skepticism/religion related) April Fools goodness, check out The Museum of Hoaxes Top 100 April Fool's Day Hoaxes page. Also, as per usual, SlashDot has been pretty much rendered un-readable for the entire day, if you're into this kind of thing.

Conspiracy: A Believer's Last Refuge

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 14:40:00 -0500

I'm sure it's happened to everyone at one point or another. You're debating with a believer about a topic close to her heart, and taking her to school. Hard.

She serves up anecdote after anecdote, but you don't miss a step. You are bombarded with logical fallacies, but return each with the ease and grace of a seasoned pro. You win point after point, set after set. You've never been able to express yourself as eloquently or clearly as you have been in this debate. Even you are surprised by your own adeptness. The game is nearing an end, and you think this might be it--the fabled love game of skepticism. Maybe, just maybe, you can actually make her see reason.

You can see she's tired. You recognize a glimmer of rationality in her eyes. You've sent her running all over the court for the entire match, and her struggling has made her realize that she's up against a much better player. She is starting to discover that maybe her beliefs are not as rock solid as she had suspected. She finally concedes that there is no reliable physical evidence or experimental replicability to support her claims. She lobs a Hail Mary into the air to give her time to catch her breath. This is it. Match point. If you place this stroke right, the debate is yours.

That's when it happens.

The glimmer of realization you thought you saw in her eyes suddenly erupts into flames of irrationality. Her tired expression is replaced by a grin. Her posture straightens, and her grip on her racquet tightens. You are put off by this change in her demeanor, and your arm falters mid-stroke. You watch in horror, thinking to yourself 'No... It can't be... please... not...'

That's when she drops the dreaded C-Bomb.

The rules have changed mid-game. You glance at the umpire, just to realize that he's been naught but a scarecrow all along. Suddenly, the lack of evidence somehow supports your opponent's beliefs. The ball splits into a million copies, and the court twists and contorts into impossible shapes as the net grows a hundred feet taller.

The game is over, but you haven't won. Nobody can win now. You make a few futile attempts to start up a new rally. "There's too many people involved, it's just not possible..." you serve. "Compartmentalization," she counters. Your ball doesn't even come close to clearing the distorted, impossibly high net. "But... Even I would have to be in on it..." you plead. She stares at you suspiciously.

Logic has decided to leave the stadium early--perhaps only to get a hot dog and a beer, you hope--but as time drags on, your optimism fades. You realize that it was a game you could never have won from the very beginning. There's only one thing left for you to do now.

You gather up your balls, and go home.

O'Hare and the Problems with Anecdotal Evidence

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:05:21 -0500

It made, and is still making, headlines around the world. A dozen or so employees at Chicago's O'Hare airport saw something in the sky. This is what I have managed to gather from the many various sources citing the eyewitness reports:

It was round, or disc-shaped.
Some people said it appeared to be spinning, others said it was motionless.
It was dark grey in color.
Some witnesses claimed it was metallic in appearance, others said it was hazy and unfocused looking.
Some said it was difficult to make out against the overcast sky.
The size has been varyingly reported as anywhere from 6 to 24 feet in diameter.
It remained for around 20 minutes before allegedly "shooting up" and leaving a hole in the clouds.
The object was not visible on radar, or from the control tower at the airport.

The witnesses have been described as pilots, mechanics, managers, "and others." One of the things I read or hear over and over again in discussions of this event is something along these lines:

Some of these witnesses are pilots, who are trained and accustomed to viewing aerial phenomena. Therefore, they should be considered highly credible expert witnesses, and their testimony accepted as accurate accounts. Being trained experts, they would know if what they were looking at was not paranormal.

The problem with this argument is that, being human, even the smartest most highly trained professionals in the world are just as susceptible to illusion and delusion as anybody else. A case in point would be to look at religion. There are many brilliant, highly educated persons who subscribe to a wide variety of faiths which contradict one another, and many who do not subscribe to faith at all. Regardless of your own religious position, you have to at least recognize the fact that some of these highly intelligent, educated people must be wrong about what they believe. They can't all be right!

Also, look at this website which displays a number of really neat optical illusions. Our brains and memories are evolutionarily adapted to recognize patterns and process things in ways that allow them to be tricked under the right circumstances. All of the education and training in the world cannot prevent this. It is biologically hard-coded into all humans--even pilots! It is a widely accepted fact--particularly in law enforcement--that eyewitness testimony is an unreliable source of information. The very fact that even in this case there are such widely varying accounts between actual witnesses should make this fairly clear.

If you are skeptical of the idea that eye witness testimony is so unreliable, I urge you to do a little research of your own on the matter. There have been many studies, particularly in the arena of law enforcement, where the accuracy of people's memories are tested in situations that could be analogous to witnessing a UFO. Time and time again they are shown to be unreliable and inaccurate. Some references to get you started:

Flaws in Reasoning and Arguments: Anecdotal Evidence and Testimonials
Eyewitness Identification Issues in Psychology
Archival study of eyewitness testimony regarding the sinking of the Titanic

Another factor to consider is that the reports themselves are only arriving to us second-hand through the media. This story and UFO sightings of this nature are so popular that it would not be unreasonable to suspect that the facts might have been slightly embellished to make for a more sensational story. One or two of the witnesses have come forward and done interviews, but as far as I know, no actual pilots or the so-called "expert" witnesses with the "training" to recognize these things have.

None of this is to say that the witnesses did not see something over the terminal at O'Hare airport that day. It is just to say that we don't know what they saw, we can't even be sure that they saw what they describe they saw, and we will likely never know what they actually saw. The only conclusions that can be drawn from the incident will be entirely subjective and speculative in nature. If you are a true-believer who already thinks aliens are visiting Earth, you will probably use the event as further evidence to support your already-held unfounded beliefs. Others, such as myself, will apply Occam's razor to the situation and assume that the event has a more mundane explanation (until and unless additional evidence surfaces to irrefutably suggest otherwise).

The Curiously Pseudo-critical Mind

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:57:38 -0500

In a recent post on his blog, Michael Prescott (author of a number of suspense novels) gave name to a phenomenon that he refers to as the "Curiously Literal Mind" (or CLM). To me, the entire post seemed primarily an attempt to label and criticize people who don't buy into some of the same unscientific beliefs that Prescott holds. What struck me as truly curious, however, was the following comment:

Lest this sound unduly harsh, I should add that people whose right brain is overly dominant tend to be spacy, unreliable, credulous, indecisive, and emotionally unstable. The trick is finding balance between the two modes of thinking. I should also add that in my Ayn Rand days I was definitely in the left-brain camp myself.

It always amazes me that people can be critical thinkers in specific areas while still remaining completely uncritical in others. I am only vaguely familiar with Ayn Rand and the criticisms of Objectivism, but from what I understand, it completely disregards and denounces traditional philosophy, and is based on faulty and contradictory reasoning and logic.

Now, Prescott does not mention why he no longer follows the teachings of Ayn Rand, but I assume it is because he managed to break out of the faulty ways of thinking and see Objectivism critically for what it really was. I applaud him for taking this step in the direction of skepticism.

However, based on other posts to his blog, it is apparent that Prescott accepts a whole slew of other pseudoscientific ideas (such as ESP, acupuncture, and reincarnation), and seems to reject a reliance on science as good way to approach the world in general. (His reasoning for this, as it turns out, is essentially because science can create weapons, bad people do bad things in the name of science, and because science tells us that the universe is meaningless. All straw-men arguments that do not suggest alternatives to science or support their superiority to science anyway.)

Clearly, Prescott does have it within him to think critically--since he successfully escaped faulty beliefs in the teachings of Ayn Rand--he seems, however, unable or unwilling to apply this ability to other areas of his beliefs as well. It is strange to me that so many people are able to recognize faulty reasoning or logic in certain instances, while at the same time holding their own beliefs for almost the exact same faulty reasoning or logic.

Another example I have come across lately is Stand To Reason's Greg Koukl. I regularly listen to podcasts of the STR radio show. I find it curious how Koukl can defend his Christian beliefs against opposing religious beliefs by pointing out faulty reasoning and logical fallacies, without making the connection that his own religious beliefs stem from the exact same faulty reasoning and logical fallacies to begin with! It is interesting that people who seem so intelligent and logically-minded are unable to see their own fallacious thinking, when they can see it so clearly in others.

I think Michael Shermer put it best in his book Why People Believe Weird Things:

Smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons.

I run into these "Curiously Pseudo-critical Minds" all the time. Someone who believes that aliens are visiting Earth based entirely on anecdotal accounts is not religious, even though the anecdotal "evidence" for religion is just as overwhelming as that for alien abductions (if not more so). Someone who believes in acupuncture does not believe in homeopathy, even though both are supported by almost identical fallacious reasons.

Is there hope for these CPMs? Perhaps. By identifying and rejecting fallacious reasoning in one area, hopefully they will be able to do the same in others over time. The appeal of believing in something that comforts you is a strong one, and it takes a lot of willpower to give up those beliefs in the face of reason and logic. Progression towards Prescott's "Curiously Literal Mind" is an important process that every kid begins when he realizes that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy aren't real. For some, the progression to reality is slower than others, and may hit a few snags on the way. It's up to the rest of us to do our best to help them along.