posted on February 28, 2019 08:39 AM by
u/FederalInvite
24
u/vistandsforwaifu25 pointsat 1551353500.000000
I mean, if you’re going to adopt Koch brothers’ positions wholesale
on climate change, social policies, economics, race and foreign
interventionism, the question of dinosaurs on Noah’s ark would seem to
be a really weird hill to die on.
True, but I'll add a caveat - the skills needed to win "debates" are distinct from the skills needed to figure out what's actually true.
It's like James Randi debunking scam artists that claim to have supernatural powers. Just being a scientist isn't the best skillset to expose them - you also need to know all about ways to trick people and create illusions. James Randi wouldn't have been James Randi without having been a magician.
Applying this to creation/evolution "debates", it's entirely possible to be good at biology and bad at sophistry.
That said, bringing this back where it started, I'll place my wager with yours - they're probably bad at both.
>it's entirely possible to be good at biology and bad at sophistry.
Yes. Absolutely.
There are three main components to rhetoric: *logos*, *ethos*, and *pathos*.
"Rational" arguments are really only about *logos*. You can win a debate on the power of *ethos* and *pathos* alone, easily, even if you're not skilled at *logos* (which we're being charitable to assume.)
A creationist can easily win the debate with *logos* alone. Being smart and knowing the right answer doesn't mean you can come up with a sound argument that you can present convincingly in a staged debate. Most creationist arguments can be easily understood by the average lay person within a few minutes. Making the case for the "evolution" side of these debates strictly with *logos* requires fairly specialized knowledge in multiple scientific fields, far too much to get across in a couple hours.
>Being smart and knowing the right answer doesn't mean you can come up with a sound argument that you can present convincingly in a staged debate.
And on the defensive side, being smart and knowing the right answer doesn't mean you can easily identify and expose sneaky ways of making arguments that *sound* logical but aren't. Even just on *logos* a scientist can lose because they aren't familiar with all the ways you can use it to lie.
Most debates (especially ones that include religion) indeed are contests that are almost wholly about Sophistry rather than rational arguments or a comprehensive understanding of the topic at hand.
I mean, you have guys like Ben Shapiro who are almost always wrong but I would almost always bet money on him 'winning' a debate.
When I come into being, most universes will have only existed as long
as I have simulated them, so, yeah, you definitely need to be charitable
toward young earth creationism.
I've been thinking about this for a few minutes, and I sincerely believe that this argument could help creationism gain traction in the rationalist community.
I guess there’s something resembling an argument hidden in there
somewhere. If all you do when interacting with creationists is assume
they’re either in it for some sort of personal gain or just so stupid
you shouldn’t bother arguing with them, you’re not gonna change their
mind and will even probably make them more certain of their views.
Of course, that falls apart once you know that all creationist
“debates” are just an opportunity for them to get a platform and use
rhetoric tricks to make their opponents look stupid.
Eh. I think there’s a case to be made for rationalists to be more
charitable in general. It’s certainly enjoyable to relentlessly go after
stupidity (I’m here, after all) but in terms of interacting with people
in the real world, that doesn’t always get you very far.
Creationism really takes the cake though. I have a friend who is an
extremely religious evangelical who is anti-creationist and has a
Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. You can very religious and also not be
stupid enough to buy creationism, it is possible!
I agree with them. The worst thing you can say about creationism is
that it’s wrong. There’s nothing inherently right-wing or bigoted about
it (although it often is because of American culture war politics). It’s
not a scam to make money or an alternative to conventional medicine that
can kill people. Our focus probably should be less on “people who are
wrong,” which is an enormous group, and more on “people who are
dangerously wrong.”
people keep talking about "our focus" or what "we should do" (especially in the culture war thread's wake), but i don't really think of this as some unified group with unified goals and intentions, just a loose conglomeration of people who like to laugh at rationalist hot takes
That's an is/ought thing. There's no unity here, sure, but I still stand by my statement about what people *should* agree on. Clearly, it's not my most popular take.
I mean, if you’re going to adopt Koch brothers’ positions wholesale on climate change, social policies, economics, race and foreign interventionism, the question of dinosaurs on Noah’s ark would seem to be a really weird hill to die on.
That’s because you’re stupid, not because creationists are smart.
Dunning-Kruger effect in action
When I come into being, most universes will have only existed as long as I have simulated them, so, yeah, you definitely need to be charitable toward young earth creationism.
I guess there’s something resembling an argument hidden in there somewhere. If all you do when interacting with creationists is assume they’re either in it for some sort of personal gain or just so stupid you shouldn’t bother arguing with them, you’re not gonna change their mind and will even probably make them more certain of their views.
Of course, that falls apart once you know that all creationist “debates” are just an opportunity for them to get a platform and use rhetoric tricks to make their opponents look stupid.
Eh. I think there’s a case to be made for rationalists to be more charitable in general. It’s certainly enjoyable to relentlessly go after stupidity (I’m here, after all) but in terms of interacting with people in the real world, that doesn’t always get you very far.
Creationism really takes the cake though. I have a friend who is an extremely religious evangelical who is anti-creationist and has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. You can very religious and also not be stupid enough to buy creationism, it is possible!
Evangelicals can read?
I agree with them. The worst thing you can say about creationism is that it’s wrong. There’s nothing inherently right-wing or bigoted about it (although it often is because of American culture war politics). It’s not a scam to make money or an alternative to conventional medicine that can kill people. Our focus probably should be less on “people who are wrong,” which is an enormous group, and more on “people who are dangerously wrong.”