How Do You Debate People Who Don't Believe in the Efficacy of Evidence

[Deleted]

Can we find a way to debate people who are unconvinced by evidence in a constructive way?

Ask why do you think X? How do you know X is true?

If he say Y say X is true.

Then whay do you think Y tell the truth? How do you know that Y tell the truth?

Force him to think.....

[Garnier Fructis]

Did you post it specifically to argue about "climate change"?
The whole debate has "facts" on each side of the argument, with each side being convinced that their "facts" are indeed accurate.
Myself, i usually like the "cuo bono" or follow the money argument (because humans are greedy and tend to follow whatever makes them personally better off), and that argument is not in favor of the "climate change" crowd.

You're not very good at following the money. Climate skepticism was funded by major oil companies whose own scientists knew decades ago that the "climate change crowd" was correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonM...ge_controversy

[Fitheach]

Genuine question regarding current social issues and debate over social media. Many people have become more, not less, biased in the "information" age and actual public consensus on facts has become nearly impossible. Climate change might be the biggest issue currently where the facts overwhelmingly support its existence and source yet people are extremely skeptical despite.

Can we find a way to debate people who are unconvinced by evidence in a constructive way? Or do debates inherently require "ground rules" where any refusal to make arguments based on evidence should bar a poster or response from engaging in a conversation?

Only be moderating and curating the flow of information so that everyone is getting the correct sources that don't lead to regression can fix this.

[Selah]

Two ways to help with this. First off, don't just debate to convince the person you're trying to debate. When people are locked in a debate, they will not change their point of view. Instead, debate when you have an audience. Your goal when debating someone should be to try to change the minds of the people watching. If you destroy someone's argument, they'll just deny what happened and say you're crazy but the people watching will use it as a time to reflect on their own personal beliefs. Though, admittedly, not everyone will agree.

The second thing is, if the person is someone you genuinely care about and you're trying to persuade them of something because you're worried about a belief they hold may harm them or someone else. Don't debate with them. You have to have an open and honest conversation where both parties are willing to give on the topic. Don't lie, don't become argumentative, don't become combative, don't become defensive. You have to show you're invested in them and you're only having this conversation because you care about them. The second you forget that is the second the conversation is over and any progress you made will be lost.

[Vyuvarax]

Ask why do you think X? How do you know X is true?

If he say Y say X is true.

Then whay do you think Y tell the truth? How do you know that Y tell the truth?

Force him to think.....

But in your example, it's his "sources" that tell him it's true - or more likely reinforce biases he wants to be true. The more complex problem with the internet is there are a lot of "sources" that are misinformation or selective and that's all certain people consume.

[PC2]

But in your example, it's his "sources" that tell him it's true - or more likely reinforce biases he wants to be true. The more complex problem with the internet is there are a lot of "sources" that are misinformation or selective and that's all certain people consume.

It's not the end of the world, you don't need those peoples permission to innovate and find solutions through science.

[Egomaniac]

And you would be ridiculously false in that statement. Cover up, your bias is showing.

Fact - something that actually exists; reality; truth:

[Antiganon]

But in your example, it's his "sources" that tell him it's true - or more likely reinforce biases he wants to be true. The more complex problem with the internet is there are a lot of "sources" that are misinformation or selective and that's all certain people consume.

In that case, you need to get him to question his sources.

Find a person who watches InfoWars. Talk to this person about Seth Rich, and Sandy Hook. Show where FOX News and other outlets they respect were saying the same things about Seth Rich, and retracted the story, because even they believe there is no evidence. Show where nobody else has denied Sandy Hook, not even other ultra-conservative outlets like Breitbart.

This should make this person question the reliability of InfoWars, and cause them to seek corroboration from other sources they trust. When they can't find it, they will stop trusting InfoWars altogether.

This can also backfire - they could instead believe that FOX News was lying about the retraction, that the corporate overlords wouldn't let them print the truth. That of course Sandy Hook was made up, but all the mainstream media companies are on the take, and only Alex Jones has the courage to speak the truth.

Ultimately, nothing that anyone on this earth can say or do will move the opinion of someone who willingly denies the existence or validity of anything contrary to their beliefs. All you can do is wait for them to see reason, and be willing to engage them when they do.

Most important - don't dismiss these people as being idiots, even if they are. That only lends credence to the idea that you are an elitist prick who looks down on people like them, and will make them want to disagree with you even more.

I maintain that the deplorables comment was one of Hillary's greatest failings, up there with Mitt Romney's 47% or Palin's "I read all the newspaper".

[judgementofantonidas]

Genuine question regarding current social issues and debate over social media. Many people have become more, not less, biased in the "information" age and actual public consensus on facts has become nearly impossible. Climate change might be the biggest issue currently where the facts overwhelmingly support its existence and source yet people are extremely skeptical despite.

Can we find a way to debate people who are unconvinced by evidence in a constructive way? Or do debates inherently require "ground rules" where any refusal to make arguments based on evidence should bar a poster or response from engaging in a conversation?

you can't. just look at some of the threads on this forum.

[Mister Cheese]

Ignore them. If they ignore evidence that you're shoving in their face, they have nothing to back up their side and still deny it then they are not worth arguing with.

[Cosmic Janitor]

You can't win. There is no cure for stupid.

[Auxora]

Those debates usually get so emotional that it's unlikely that the other person is going to stop and say, "you know what that's a good point, you are right". Instead people usually just get angry. But you hope that maybe a while later after the emotions and anger have passed, that they are able to think more rationally about the points you made and give them a fair chance.

One big asterisk in that though is that there are some situations where facts and evidence can be laid down, but it doesn't necessarily mean that a particular decision or action based on that should be taken even if the facts themselves are true. What position you take based on facts is where things get subjective and grey.

[draynay]

Why even bother?

[Endus]

Why even bother?

As is so often the case, XKCD puts it about as well as it could be.

[Stormspellz]

Some data is skewed. Like my Indians voting on if they think nigger is of, i mean Redskin is offensive. Very, very small sample size with most not even actual natives. Other data isn't processed in a way to make people understand. Such as climate change. Do humans have an influence on climate change? 100% yes. Is it enough to cause the weather we are seeing or are we capable of changing it ourselves? 100% no. Mother earth takes care of herself. Is Trump a dick bag? Yep. Is this what people voted for and wanted? Yep.

humans are influencing the climate but humans can't do anything to slow it down? thats some interesting logic

[A dot Ham]

You're actually asking 2 separate questions. As such:

Can we find a way to debate people who are unconvinced by evidence in a constructive way?

Yes, you make an appeal to their emotional side. Which in and of itself is a logical fallacy. However if your purpose is to win them over... fight fire with fire.

Do debates inherently require "ground rules" where any refusal to make arguments based on evidence should bar a poster or response from engaging in a conversation?

The ground rules:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

People should absolutely be barred from weighing in on a topic without something to CONTRIBUTE. That contribution can be contention especially if that contention actually leads us closer to truth.

We live in an age where people are encouraged to HAVE an opinion, and to SHARE the opinion, but NOT UNDERSTAND that opinion.

You are absolutely entitled to an opinion. But why? The WHY matters. A person should always be able to articulate those feelings, it should come from somewhere, have some basis for existence. I just do... or I just FEEL that way should never be acceptable response. Not from others... and definitely not for yourself.

If you do feel a certain way, without any reason, or you can't understand it, much less articulate it... 2 things should happen.

(1) You should keep your mouth shut.

(2) You should be far more open to alternative ideas.

[McFuu]

Genuine question regarding current social issues and debate over social media. Many people have become more, not less, biased in the "information" age and actual public consensus on facts has become nearly impossible. Climate change might be the biggest issue currently where the facts overwhelmingly support its existence and source yet people are extremely skeptical despite.

Can we find a way to debate people who are unconvinced by evidence in a constructive way? Or do debates inherently require "ground rules" where any refusal to make arguments based on evidence should bar a poster or response from engaging in a conversation?

Rule of all debates, you aren't trying to change the mind of the person you are debating, you are trying to sway the thinking of observers.

Any proper debate class/club will tell you this day one.

Now if you are talking about having a discussion, and the person you are discussing with holds this same mentality; I ask you who really is the ignorant one, the person refusing to believe evidence without reason, or the guy talking to the wall?

[Lakrin]

I feel like George Carlin might have been on to something with this one... you take the warning labels off of everything and let the problem handle itself.

(just a joke, I promise).

I don't actually know.

[Bodakane]

Wait for them to drown when the sea levels rise or get shot by a high powered gun or they lose their children to disease or lose everything to the wealthy 1%.

Then it won't matter what they think.

[PC2]

humans are influencing the climate but humans can't do anything to slow it down? thats some interesting logic

Some countries can try to slow it down a bit. Regardless, CO2 is going up to 500 PPM, then fossil fuel will be less competitive and not much of an issue anymore.