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

[Max Rebo]

I've argued with one of my relatives on Facebook more times than I care to admit. Plain and simple: They can't be reasoned with. I routinely present stats, data, and evidence of all sorts and their default response is to claim "fake news" or to deflect with all manner of logical fallacy, including the all too common "whataboutism". It drives me insane that they can't argue rationally. It also doesn't help that all of their sources include either Fox News or some far-right clickbait news site that will usually omit important details or include images that have nothing to do with the article itself.

One specific issue I have a big problem with is that they are quite hypocritical when it comes to health care. Premiums with respect to their small business rose significantly due to the ACA. Yes, that sucked, but it's a part that needs to be fixed. At the same time, they still had their 4-5 bedroom house; they still had a successful business; they still took vacations to Hawaii or Mexico every year. They Hcompletely ignored the fact that millions of other people were finally able to afford health care. They comes out as staunchly against universal health care, but since turning 65 last year, they now rave about how cheap and great Medicare is compared to previous years without it. I really want to ask them how that socialized health coverage is working out, but I suspect I wouldn't get an honest response.

I've read various articles explaining that for arguing in situations like this, it can be beneficial to just start asking them why. Why do they feel a certain way? Why do they think X law should be passed? Why do they think it's good? What benefits will this have? I know how it might affect you... but how will it affect other people, and do you care? In doing so, it *might* make them realize that the other guy actually has some reasonable points and it *might* get them to recognize that in some cases they are wrong, hypocritical, or whatever.

One of my friends is a climate science denier. This one's a bit different in that he refuses to argue with me because he would simply dismiss any info I throw at him. At the same time, he'll throw back "evidence" that climate change is a hoax because of the Medieval Warming Period and similar events. He completely ignores that these events were regional and had little to no effect on global climate. I don't know if he understands variance within trends and things of that nature.

So yeah... frustrating.

EDIT: And after all that, I agree with Mercane (above). Eventually, you realize that ignoring them is much more productive and stress-free.

[nycnyc88]

I changed the subject, by explicitly replying to something you linked. Alright.

But let's go through these nonscientific points because you clearly aren't going to admit you were wrong about the ice.

1) Climategate was investigated by 8 different panels in the UK and US, and all of them found no wrongdoing. Why? Because the hackers, and you, read the emails out of context and assumed that they meant what you wanted it to mean.

By googling this topic around its an even tie, with regards to who is right and who is wrong, based purely on arguments presented. Knowing human nature (and having worked with think tanks) usually people will do whatever they need to protect their ass (i.e. make up shit to get funding). Also, i would totally expect the group that was hacked to try to defend themselves. Its typical human behavior and there are no surprises they would try to do just that.

2) Simply wrong. The overwhelming majority of all scientists agree with it, and an even higher fraction of climate scientists agree with it. This is a result that has been demonstrated multiple times, before you bring up the failed 'rebuttal' of Cook.

Furthermore, most papers from skeptic scientists make all sorts of errors: https://static-content.springer.com/...MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Right, your links are legit and true, my links are false. For every argument link there is at least one counterargument.

3) You realize scientists would still get funding if climate change was different, right? Because there's still a hell of a lot of science related to atmosphere and climate that needs researching.

Except if they have been proven to make shit up and dismissed as such. Fortunately for the climate crowd, a lot of .govs benefit from scaremongering as they directly get more control over everyone (and more money fiddled to "green energy" ala Solyndra)

In addition, the money argument is completely fail: you get paid a great deal to cast doubt on climate change. And yet, the overwhelming majority of scientists are lining up to get a piece of that sweet, sweet, middle class salary instead.

In your humble opinion? I said you said? Links? Proof?

Ok so your basic counterargument, again, is that your facts are better than my facts, and just like you, i can call a lot of the info in the PDF biased and serving a special purpose.
I think its pretty clear that neither of us will change their mind and thats ok.
The goal here is for other people who may have skimmed the topic to hopefully do some research and come to their own conclusions, yet it is the alarmist camp calling out jailing people who disagree with them.
A good climate change (human caused) denier read here
https://www.amazon.com/Climategate-V.../dp/1935071831

[Endus]

By googling this topic around its an even tie, with regards to who is right and who is wrong, based purely on arguments presented. Knowing human nature (and having worked with think tanks) usually people will do whatever they need to protect their ass (i.e. make up shit to get funding).

No. It isn't "an even tie". Your claim here is a flat-out lie, and always has been.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...imategate.html
https://skepticalscience.com/Climate...ils-hacked.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climat...il_controversy

This has all been known for years. Digging up an at-the-time stupid and swiftly debunked conspiracy theory and pretending it still has legs? You're being completely ridiculous.

Except if they have been proven to make shit up and dismissed as such. Fortunately for the climate crowd, a lot of .govs benefit from scaremongering as they directly get more control over everyone (and more money fiddled to "green energy" ala Solyndra)

Again, you're literally talking about a global conspiracy while presenting zero evidence or even a rational basis under which said conspiracy could occur.

As for Solyndra; the program funding Solyndra funded a lot of companies, with a hugely successful ratio, and pointing at one of the very few failures ignores that the program overall made a huge return on the investment.
http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572...rning-a-profit

News from 2014 is so fresh and exciting. How do you not know this?

Ok so your basic counterargument, again, is that your facts are better than my facts, and just like you, i can call a lot of the info in the PDF biased and serving a special purpose.

The basic counterargument is that you don't have any facts backing your assertions. None. You have lies and bullshit conspiracy theories that were thoroughly discredited years ago.

[Deleted]

The trick is not to debate most people at all, especially not the ones close to you.

Think as you like, behave like others.

[nycnyc88]

As i said we are not going to convince each other. You will call my links bs, and i will call yours.
Instead here is another great book on the subject written in 2015 from various different perspectives. With luck everyone will make their own mind.

https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Chang..._&dpSrc=detail

[Garnier Fructis]

By googling this topic around its an even tie, with regards to who is right and who is wrong, based purely on arguments presented. Knowing human nature (and having worked with think tanks) usually people will do whatever they need to protect their ass (i.e. make up shit to get funding). Also, i would totally expect the group that was hacked to try to defend themselves. Its typical human behavior and there are no surprises they would try to do just that.

It's not an even tie. Every independent investigation has cleared them.

Right, your links are legit and true, my links are false. For every argument link there is at least one counterargument.

Which isn't the same as saying there's at least one good counterargument.

Except if they have been proven to make shit up and dismissed as such. Fortunately for the climate crowd, a lot of .govs benefit from scaremongering as they directly get more control over everyone (and more money fiddled to "green energy" ala Solyndra)

The only people who have been proven to make shit up are climate skeptics.

Ok so your basic counterargument, again, is that your facts are better than my facts, and just like you, i can call a lot of the info in the PDF biased and serving a special purpose.
I think its pretty clear that neither of us will change their mind and thats ok.
The goal here is for other people who may have skimmed the topic to hopefully do some research and come to their own conclusions, yet it is the alarmist camp calling out jailing people who disagree with them.
A good climate change (human caused) denier read here
https://www.amazon.com/Climategate-V.../dp/1935071831

The PDF I linked gives scientific and mathematical arguments for why the papers listed are wrong. You can call it whatever you like, but all it comes across as is you doing your best to ignore anything approaching actual analysis.

And I'm not here to change your mind. I know it's ridiculously hard, because I've only convinced one person in real life. I'm here to point our your bullshit for anyone spectating.

- - - Updated - - -

As i said we are not going to convince each other. You will call my links bs, and i will call yours.
Instead here is another great book on the subject written in 2015 from various different perspectives. With luck everyone will make their own mind.

https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Chang..._&dpSrc=detail

I can't speak for others, but I didn't call your links bullshit. I called your interpretation of those links bullshit, i.e. NASA & ice. And since you're just going to keep posting links to denier material, I'll balance it out:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...fHsWPfAIyI7VAP

[Sama-81]

And all your nonsense about "leftists" just demonstrates for everyone your partisan bias. For the rest of the rational people in the world, science isn't partisan at all, and your claims that it is makes you look like a crazy person.

Do you fully agree with that yourself, though? I mean, for example, science considers every single human chromosome make-up that, in terms of sex-chromosomes, doesn't contain exactly either two X or one X and one Y as a genetic error. That much is a scientific fact, that lacks any contention what-so-ever in the world of academia or medicine (ie, by the experts), not least since the actual errors can be easily demonstrated in detail, as just that. Errors. Things going in a way they were not meant to go, ie awry, in terms of that particular individual (not just in regards to an overall principle).

Now I personally do not see the distinction as problematic what-so-ever, as I don't really see why it even matters if it's an error or not outside of science (not counting possible unfortunate side-effects or similar), but it seems not everyone is so willing to accept the scientific facts of the matter (not even other scientists, belonging to other fields - typically the social sciences), due to for example a political will for the sex make-up of those not covered by the XX/XY-dichotomy to be just as...'valid' as everyone elses, even within the realm of science. And that's just one example, the medical world is full of similar ones.

Like for example the pretty much uncontested position that there indeed are different human races (which, again, I fail to even see the relevance of outside of the reasons the term is used in the first place, ie obvious differences in regards to diseases and treatments), which tends to become a hot potato at times, or the fact that we start to realize that the differences in genetic make-up between Africans and pretty much all other humans likely is quite large indeed (which is interesting, but not much else, to the natural sciences - sadly, a lot more attention will likely be garnered elsewhere). Hopefully, all rational people will still realize that science is politically unbiased, but I'm not so sure we won't see more and more science-deniers in the future.

[Planetdune]

You ignore them and pick better friends.

[Deleted]

You're just making shit up at this point. Don't give me that "you can google it" bullshit. Find a source that backs up any of your claims.

None of the links you posted have references to anything at all. I'm not too lazy to read. I read them. I'm just pretty sure you't not even aware of what they're actually saying because they literally say nothing besides some blog post type shit you're doing. It basically boils down to "this data shit is complicated and I don't understand it and it goes against my narrative and some people agree with me!" They're not actually analyzing any data whatsoever.

I'm actually educated enough and capable of understanding the science. It's really not even that complicated how greenhouse gasses work and how we make a shit ton of them as humans. Regardless, my math capabilities go beyond understanding simple algebra, if you even understand that, so I'm perfectly capable of analyzing data and coming to my own conclusions.

Nice dodge of the question though. If you're not going to tell me what you think your sources say then just don't reply.

I'm quoting you to illustrae my earlier point and the point of this thread, not to answer you directly. This is the exact situation to show how NOT to talk to average denier of evidence.
Given how quoting works on this forum, this is the link to original quote, which was quoted and then quoted again here by me. Hope it doesn't get screwed due to original posters editing it due time.

Original poster talked some things, mainly about evil entities (people, politicans, corporations) that have a reason of manufacturing a hoax.
Reply poster talked almost nothing about evil entities that original poster believed in, instead talked about evidence.

This is the core of almost every conspiracy theory 'discussion' everywhere! Both sides talk about different things! One side talks about evidence, other side talks about evil people having interest in 'creating' evidence. If you listen carefully, they often don't even reject actual evidence! They just don't consider it an evidence at all!

It would be the funniest part if it weren't about such a serious things nowadays that both sides can be actually right! I.e. Evidence can point that climate change is a serious thing AND at the same time so-called deniers of it can be right that there are oppurtinists trying to make profit of it, caring very little about our planet, but selling solar panels anyway.

But what happens when you talk about actual evidence to such people? You make them feel that their perceived 'evil' people/corporations/politicans/etc are even more powerful to manufacture so much events to support their evidence, which in result makes them reject it altogether even more and when they are at their limits of rejection, they end up spreading their own views to others looking for support from others.

When you present evidence to such people, you only make things worse. So DON'T.

Yeah. DON'T.

Still, if you do, then talk about 'real' entities due to which such people perceive eviednce to be fake, not about evidence itself.

[Antiganon]

Right, in other words your sources are good because they had peer reviews (who are just as biased, because they need funding), yet everyone else with a different opinion is full of it. When i called you wether you have done your own research (i,e have you actually researched the input numbers that you claim you have analyzed using your excellent algebra and statistics skills), you never replied - instead you reiterated how you essentially just trust the establishment.

this is all very typical of a progressive liberal "My way is the only way, lets bash all who disagree" and "ignore the question if i cant answer it / it doesnt suite my agenda"

Here are some official links for you
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard...record-maximum

And a typical response from the climate alarmists:



How typical of the progressive left.



You can google this around too if you arent too lazy (or ignorant)

This is really disingenuous.

1. At least some climatologists who use proper methodology would see results indicating that anthropogenic climate change does not exist, or is not as concerning as the majority of studies show.

This has not happened. Of the peer-reviewed papers denying climate change, ALL of them were found to have skewed data or flawed methodology. I'm sure @Endus can provide the source.

2. The government provides grants for researchers to research, not for the results. You really think the government would stop funding climate research if it was shown that anthropogenic climate change had no impact? No. The research would just shift from "how do we clean up our act" to "how do we delay or prevent planetary death to give us time to colonize elsewhere".

3. Fossil fuel companies also fund research. Notably, fossil fuel companies, by and large, spend large amounts of resources on environmental efforts. Part of this is optics, to be sure, but part of this is because they know that if they can't make fossil fuels less damaging to the environment, they can't remain competitive in the marketplace with green energy that can be generated for similar prices without the negative externalities inherent to pollution.

4. You have no idea how to properly source anything, apparently. There is no link to the opinion piece you are quoting from, and the Washington Times can hardly be called neutral. Additionally, the Times article is itself poorly sourced, providing no citations for the ridiculous quotes about charging climate change deniers with murder. Furthermore, to equate a few crazy people on the left with the entire scientific community is deliberately misleading. I could write a similarly ridiculous article including ridiculous quotes from extreme right nutjobs such as Richard Spencer suggesting a peaceful ethnic cleansing (never mind that such a thing is functionally impossible), but that would by no means represent all or even most conservatives.

[Endus]

This is really disingenuous.

1. At least some climatologists who use proper methodology would see results indicating that anthropogenic climate change does not exist, or is not as concerning as the majority of studies show.

This has not happened. Of the peer-reviewed papers denying climate change, ALL of them were found to have skewed data or flawed methodology. I'm sure @Endus can provide the source.

If you want the actual paper, here you go; https://link.springer.com/article/10...704-015-1597-5

[Antiganon]

If you want the actual paper, here you go; https://link.springer.com/article/10...704-015-1597-5

Thanks. I read it in one of the other threads, but didn't remember what the source was, and figured you would have it handy.

[Garnier Fructis]

If you want the actual paper, here you go; https://link.springer.com/article/10...704-015-1597-5

And before people whine about it again, all the details are in the "Supplemental material" link on the right hand side.

[Powerogue]

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

No. If people can't answer "what, if anything, would ever change your mind?" with an honest answer then it's a complete waste of time talking to them.



I've beat my head against people like that for years and it's done nothing but gray my hairs. If they seriously don't care at all what the truth is, or even go as far as to brag that they don't care what the truth is with things like "statements of faith", they're a lost cause.