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

[Vyuvarax]

Yep. Everything on the planet has an influence, but we'd be stupid to think (outside of nukie nuke nuke war) we'd have a major impact on it.

Data overwhelmingly says otherwise, so isn't the default position that it's stupid to think we don't have a major impact?

- - - Updated - - -

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

I think the conclusion of the comic undermines its prior claims. The people who the comic claims views are irrelevant are the ones that elect the problematical senator. Therefore, their views do matter in that they enable fact denying legislators.

[Themius]

Yep. Everything on the planet has an influence, but we'd be stupid to think (outside of nukie nuke nuke war) we'd have a major impact on it.

So do you think humans causing the depletion of the ozone due to heavy use of cfcs is myth or something?

[ipaq]

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 don't.

They're obviously mentally defective.

[Themius]

Find things you have in common and agree upon to build a rapport, is a good start. Be humble and gentle, do not come across as cold or authoritarian.

I find it stupid to not come across as very direct or cold even.

Facts don't care about your feelings that global warming isn't a thing... And be humble and gentle? It's like you're saying to deal with them as you would a child or retarded adult.

[ItachiZaku]

So do you think humans causing the depletion of the ozone due to heavy use of cfcs is myth or something?

Our existence is a myth.

[Akka]

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.

Who is actually skeptical about climate change outside USA ?
It's a very specifically American problem, not a sign of the age worldwide.

[ItachiZaku]

Data overwhelmingly says otherwise, so isn't the default position that it's stupid to think we don't have a major impact?

Depends on what you feel is "major" i suppose. Nothing of worth can happen unless what, 6 billion people do it? So no point, as 7 billion are already working real hard to destroy it.

[Icedcoffeee]

Everyone believes in evidence to some extent. Most people just aren't rigorous about what and why they value some evidence and not others.

Regardless, I think people are more easily persuaded by narratives than pure arguments, so if you can reframe the situation into a different narrative that they are more amenable to, you can demobilize them on that issue, and maybe even convert them.

Example: rather than argue the facts of global warming, make it a narrative about corporate greed, religious piety, economic opportunity, etc.

[mvaliz]

One of the big probs ive found is that many who are cornered with evidence that proves their belief wrong will put their selfish pride first and ultimately make up a lie right there on the spot in order to "win" the argument. I have two friends ive learned never to debate with as they do this all the time at the end of a discussion if ut doesn't go the way they want. It's usually prefaced with phrases like "I know I read somewhere that..." or "Well, I personally know somebody that says/has done...".

[Raunchy]

Alot of people on this forum are that way, id say just give up its a useless endeavor

[khalltusk]

Facts don't need a consensus to be facts. The earth was always an oblate spheroid orbiting the sun, no matter if the consensus was it was the center of the universe and flat with an edge.
Most people aren't sceptical that is is occurring nor exacerbated by human activity, they are sceptical of the alarmism in thinking the world is going to end due to rising sea levels as well as very sceptical of the efficacy of selective de-industrialisation (the West) on rising temps when complete de-industrialisation (the whole world) hasn't even demonstrated a significant impact in models.
There is no consensus on what the impact of these changes will be, just a lot of speculation. What there is consensus on is that it's happening and burning fossil fuels is exacerbating the change.

The world won't end, but there will be massive impacts for sure. Just look at the great barrier reef and the bleaching going on. If the trend continues it would cause a severe disruption to the food chain in that area. Bleaching is not just restricted to that area its world wide and becoming more frequent. This is one factor caused by global warming and it will cause a lot of problems as huge populations of sea life use those reefs as nurseries food sources etc.

[telygroar]

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

I can decapitate you but i cant revive you by gluing back your head in place. Not yet. Same with climate !
You cant revive and regenerate something when you dont fucking know how to do it, because you dont have the mean (yet).

[Dezerte]

I find it stupid to not come across as very direct or cold even.

Facts don't care about your feelings that global warming isn't a thing... And be humble and gentle? It's like you're saying to deal with them as you would a child or retarded adult.

You want to make it as easy as possible for your opponent to come into agreement with you. When you are making an appeal to emotion facts don't matter, what matters is that they trust you, that they feel that you are right. Then if successful you can present them the evidence once again.

[Kokolums]

Debate doesnt work. It is not effective. It accomplishes nothing. No ones opinion is ever changed. Why do you wish to debate? The only thing ive learned from debates is that people who love debates are often very arrogant and love to hear themselves talk.

[nycnyc88]

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

Oh really?
http://www.acting-man.com/?p=48116
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/1...g-figures.html
http://www.acting-man.com/?p=40241

As i said, for every argument there is a counter argument.
With any luck people will actually research the topic on their own and make their own decisions.

[Themius]

You want to make it as easy as possible for your opponent to come into agreement with you. When you are making an appeal to emotion facts don't matter, what matters is that they trust you, that they feel that you are right. Then if successful you can present them the evidence once again.

I am open to hearing what people about to say and then going about looking into it I don't really care how they say it as long as they're not rude but even if they're rude I'll look into it (usually if they're rude I am dealing with someone who is like fuck facts and what I am looking into is some sort of anecdote of something they claimed happened). I've changed my opinions on things when presented with something that changes them.

Usually though that is because I am actively trying to see counterarguments to my own positions.

[ItachiZaku]

I've changed my opinions on things when presented with something that changes them.

Yep, I've either had limited facts or pov's on things and learned new shit here and was like... oh, well then, guess I won't be lib anymore or an orc anymore. I think most of the time for me, I just don't tend to care too much anymore to dive too deeply into anything. Like this climate change thing... Earth has been around millions of years before us and will be for millions of years after us. We don't matter in the massively large picture.

[Themius]

Yep, I've either had limited facts or pov's on things and learned new shit here and was like... oh, well then, guess I won't be lib anymore or an orc anymore. I think most of the time for me, I just don't tend to care too much anymore to dive too deeply into anything. Like this climate change thing... Earth has been around millions of years before us and will be for millions of years after us. We don't matter in the massively large picture.

So ? The point is climate change is bad for humans and animals.

[ItachiZaku]

So ? The point is climate change is bad for humans and animals.

They've always come and gone before us and will well after us. Though, I am very much against trophy hunting.

I'm such a fucking gemini, wtf.

[Derecho]

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?

I'd point to a couple things. First off, try to fully understand the opposing person's argument, read their sources and consider them against what you know and your sources. Many people don't do this, and end up making arguments or debating things that the other person doesn't believe or has ever stated. This happens all the time here at MMO, where one side presumes to know the position of the other and attacks that side with such venom that actual debate isn't possible. Inform yourself on the opposing argument.

Second, debating over the internet is a big barrier to overcome in and of itself. When you remove the human element of discussion, and all you have to deal with is a forum name and avatar, it makes it hard to make a connection. Precious few threads on MMO are actual debates. Both sides are so heavily invested in their views that neither will give much credence to something some random guy on the internet says, especially if they do so in a way that is condescending and elitist. Always remember that there's a person on the other side of the keyboard. Attempt to address them online like you would in person, unless you're a dick IRL - in which case, address them like you'd address a friend. (If you're a dick to your friends, then I'm out of suggestions!) Some of the most effective posters here are very polite and don't take ad hominem attacks personally and don't make them. They just stick to the argument and continue being nice. Unfortunately, I've seen posters post with such venom towards opposing viewpoints, like one poster's doozy on people who are pro-life and how they apparently believe women are mares who don't deserve rights, that that poster loses all credibility immediately. In this poster's case, it wasn't about being offended over what he said, it was that he revealed he doesn't understand the opposing side and comes close to actually hating them. For someone like myself, this poster doesn't engage in debate. He is a lecturer. He's not there to debate, he's there to inform you why you're wrong, stupid for believing what you do, and perhaps a bit evil. There are far too many of those types on the boards. When you let yourself come to disdain the opposing side to such an extent that you can't remember you're responding to an actual person, you've lost the connection you need to help persuade them. I try to remember that these people have families and friends who love them, and that their best side may not be showing when they post. That doesn't help me consider their arguments more, but it keeps me from disliking or hating them.

Third, if you have some kind of credentials in the area you are debating, you should share them. Even if those credentials are that you've read the studies or work in the field, a youtube video of someone in that field discussing the topic, a brother who's a doctor, etc etc. These credentials may not help with some people, but some of the others will be forced to provide counter arguments using their credentials and sources. Attack arguments, not the people who make them.

And fourth, if you find that you cannot persuade them, don't stress yourself out over it. Exit the conversation and try again next time. If there are any new facts or perspectives, or even ways to present your argument, employ those for the next time you debate. The problem I see is that everyone sticks to making the same points over and over again. That method is unlikely to persuade another person who's already, in their mind, proven that argument wrong. If you find yourself getting emotional, consider taking a break. Don't worry about getting the last word. There are several threads I've posted in where I've let the opposing person get the last word in, since it's clear there's no way to persuade them that they're wrong. If they chose to believe they got me or won, that doesn't take anything away from me at all, nor does it make my argument any less true. If you recognize that the person you're talking to is unwavering, don't frustrate yourself by trying to persuade them until you're blue in the face.

Even if people followed all these suggestions, there'd still be challenges to overcome. That's the nature of debate. Generally, though, I believe those four items would go a long way in fostering the type of debate needed to persuade others.