Help with characterizing antiscience debate

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have been trying to sharpen my concept of the problem of allowing legitimate scientific debate and dissenting opinions vs what to do or how to address the problem of a scientific debate when the debaters are presenting lies and distortions such as the antiscience opinions that have become prominent recently.

I'm having a discussion in another forum about the refusal to let Lord Monckton testify in the Congressional hearings because he doesn't represent the science of global warming, he represents antiscience lies. And I know we've had some discussions before about whether or not scientists should debate the Creationists.

So I'm looking for opinions about the problem of debating people who grossly misrepresent the truth. For example, if you are debating a person who claims radioisotope dating doesn't really give valid dates, that is nonsense. So it isn't really a scientific debate, it's science vs lies and/or ignorance. You could say, it's not a scientific debate. But then it looks like you are refusing to debate. Or you could agree to debate and you give a podium to someone presenting clearly false information.

So how would you present the position defending the decision: it is not a scientific debate to debate the science deniers? I want to explain in the discussion I am having on the other forum, that the reason for not having the debate is because it is not a scientific debate, it isn't a debate about legitimate scientific opinions. But I need to clearly support that position in a way that doesn't leave room for the claim: one is censoring debate.

 

[jasonpatterson]

The first thing I thought of when I read this was, "What is the purpose of a debate?" The answer I came up with was that it is intended to argue the merits of an unsolved problem. The difficulty with the examples you give is that neither side can agree to a set of logical rules to follow in the debate. To someone arguing a scientific point in biology, a Bible quote carries no strength. Similarly, for someone arguing that their deity created Earth 6,000 years ago, faith is the strongest argument they can make.

My thinking is that the only purpose of a scientific debate would be to try to decide between alternative explanations, neither of which are supported or refuted by a preponderance of evidence (string theory vs loop quantum gravity, for instance.) That's the thing about science, if you use it in your thinking, then these questions (evolution vs creationism, for instance) aren't really debatable. It would be like debating whether Earth is round or flat, one side doesn't have much of a chance.

In the case of someone making patent lies regarding scientific issues, I can't see how a rigorous, logical debate could be had, at least one in which one side didn't completely embarrass themselves. However, if the intent of the debate is to try to decide whether science and religiosity can coexist, then it seems reasonable that there could be a civil argument on the subject.

Here is some debate prep for you. We can all learn from Batman.

 

[shadron]

There was a lot of that sort of rhetoric flying around a couple of years ago when the Kansas school board floated their "Trial of Darwin"; looking into that might help you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There was a lot of that sort of rhetoric flying around a couple of years ago when the Kansas school board floated their "Trial of Darwin"; looking into that might help you.

I thought of that after I posted the OP.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The first thing I thought of when I read this was, "What is the purpose of a debate?" The answer I came up with was that it is intended to argue the merits of an unsolved problem. The difficulty with the examples you give is that neither side can agree to a set of logical rules to follow in the debate. To someone arguing a scientific point in biology, a Bible quote carries no strength. Similarly, for someone arguing that their deity created Earth 6,000 years ago, faith is the strongest argument they can make.

My thinking is that the only purpose of a scientific debate would be to try to decide between alternative explanations, neither of which are supported or refuted by a preponderance of evidence (string theory vs loop quantum gravity, for instance.) That's the thing about science, if you use it in your thinking, then these questions (evolution vs creationism, for instance) aren't really debatable. It would be like debating whether Earth is round or flat, one side doesn't have much of a chance.

In the case of someone making patent lies regarding scientific issues, I can't see how a rigorous, logical debate could be had, at least one in which one side didn't completely embarrass themselves. However, if the intent of the debate is to try to decide whether science and religiosity can coexist, then it seems reasonable that there could be a civil argument on the subject.

I don't think this is a matter of agreeing to the debate rules except as a side issue. And the point is not arguing God said so vs science. If it were that, the problem would be solved. The folks I am talking about are pretending to argue scientific evidence but they aren't. And it's more than Bible literalists though they make up a big part. Global warming deniers and many of the CTers often has bizarre beliefs about scientific evidence as well.

Here is some debate prep for you. We can all learn from Batman.

Cute. It represents what I am talking about but offers no approach to deal with the problem.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For example, tonight on Chris Matthews, he challenged his guest's trust in science. The guest replied with the usual Creationist's lies, 1) there is no evidence of macro evolution and 2) legitimate scientists doubt evolution theory.

Matthews of course, not being well versed in answering this lie, had no answer. That leaves the audience thinking there is no evidence for macro evolution and evolution is a weak theory.

This differs from debating if the fossil evidence of marine mammals shows they went from sea to land to sea, for example. Not that one can really argue the evidence shows anything else, but the evidence under discussion at least actually exists. Claiming no evidence exists is completely false. Arguing a different interpretation of the evidence is a scientific debate. Arguing there is no evidence is not.

I want to be able to point out the difference.

 

[Holler Hoojer]

We are too often led astray by the notion that a combination of first amendment rights and "sunlight on ideas" means that we should grant a hearing to any opinion. Some think that Phelps and his church have a legitimate point of view. Some think the KKK have the same. Or, perhaps, the Taliban. That is pure baloney because those people don't operate under the same rules (civility, open to having minds changed, objective evidence, etc) that the other side uses.

In the case of Monckton, he is not a US citizen or resident, he is not a scientist, and he has no credentials in climatology (i.e., no papers as we normally know them, no research program(s), no formal education in climate science). Debating him is no different (except in style) than debating "Joe the Plumber". If you ask Monckton to step to the whiteboard and show some equations showing how to reconcile the apparent integrative runaway of the Mann curve with the lack of a forcing function, he is unable to do that. What he can do is reiterate positions and distortions, rather like a political candiate who, when asked about nuclear weapons in North Korea, says "I will bring peace through prosperity and that means stopping mountaintop removal in Kansas."

There is not only no point in debating such people, but we run the risk of damaging science in even allowing these people access to the public podia.

 

[aggle-rithm]

So I'm looking for opinions about the problem of debating people who grossly misrepresent the truth.

Maybe you should start with the definition of "truth". For a believer, truth is dogma; for a scientist, truth is reality wrapped in logic.

 

[aggle-rithm]

There was a lot of that sort of rhetoric flying around a couple of years ago when the Kansas school board floated their "Trial of Darwin"; looking into that might help you.

In the new series "Sit Down, Shut Up" the school was preparing for a visit from the ultra-pious school board. When the principal found a book being used to balance the short leg of a desk, she berated the teacher. The book was called "Desk Balancing", and it needed to be thrown out because "the school board thinks desk balancing is witchcraft".

Delicious, if somewhat obscure, satire!

 

[JJM]

Skeptigirl, that is a really tough call. We want to be out front, educating the public. However, as you suggest, debating woos dignifies their positions by association with science. Also, public debate of technical topics tacitly support the notion that laypeople can properly evaluate claims. I have seen precious little evidence that is true. Rather, I see people "researching" topics and then siding with woo-meisters on a large scale.

In addition to people's inability to research technical topics, there is the problem that debate is spectacle. The public is likely to be persuaded by the person with the better hair and/or turn of phrase, and who makes the most use of improper (fallacious or devious) arguments. On top of that, it is usually the crank's adherents who are motivated to attend in order to see the "authority" demolished.

As far as I know, refusal to debate only provides the woos with the claim that you cannot defend your side. (It isn't censorship- the other side is free to say anything (as they did in Kansas, 2005).)

My feeling is that debates over woo are generally a bad idea. Mr. Patterson (above) suggested the need for rules to level the playing field. That is exemplified by Kitzmiller v. Board of Ed. (Dover, Pa.) in 2005, concerning ID-creationism. In court, the debaters (witnesses) cannot give evasive answers because the judge requires direct responses. The late Stephen J. Gould was rabidly opposed to debates; but he participated in a similar trial ca. 1988.

If you find yourself compelled to debate, get the most restrictive rules.

 

[drkitten]

I
So how would you present the position defending the decision: it is not a scientific debate to debate the science deniers? I want to explain in the discussion I am having on the other forum, that the reason for not having the debate is because it is not a scientific debate, it isn't a debate about legitimate scientific opinions. But I need to clearly support that position in a way that doesn't leave room for the claim: one is censoring debate.

Because one cannot "debate" with a liar.

 

[mazyloron]

I had this same sort of thing happen to me recently. A friend of mine responded to something I'd posted on my Facebook account (yeah, sad, but when I tried to just do a little blog of my own, no one could be bothered to read it, since it didn't come up on their MySpace/Facebook front page...but anyway /tangent), basically something on religion/atheism.

Essentially, he started up with stuff like "evolution is one of the least solid theories in science", and made vague assertions that the fossil record was "incomplete" therefore didn't really prove anything. He claimed that survival was "a very shallow explanation" for why animals adapt to their surroundings, and that "no one knows the mechanism that causes evolution."

I think I replied in a fairly even-toned, factual manner, but every time I made a point, he'd switch subjects or ignore it. So I posted at length to fully explain my points, and he just stopped participating entirely.

The thing is, he's generally one of the smarter people I know. He's abrasive, but skeptical of many things, and not usually one to fall for anything that woo-y. But he sometimes latches on to something and spouts all sorts of, um...counter-factual arguments, then drops it when anyone actually has a rational response.

I have no idea how to deal with that either. How do you debate someone who won't debate, just says their piece and leaves, or who doesn't listen to what you say to them in the debate, but just keeps saying the same thing over and over again, or who responds to actual evidence (reality-based observations that are objectively verifiable/falsifiable) with lies that have no basis in reality? (Though, likely he doesn't know they're lies, but that's part of the problem.)

I have a sneaky feeling that I know where some of this supposed skepticism comes from on his part, given the pattern of what he is and isn't critical of. I suspect it's not really skepticism, or not entirely. But I digress...

I'm not trying to evangelize or "convert" him, or anyone else, but I would like to be able to clearly and articulately explain my views, and debate criticism or questioning of them with anyone, not just people on this forum. I'm not trying to force others to agree with me, but I would like to know that they understand my points and see why I feel the way I do, even if they disagree - this is how I feel about others with whom I disagree, for the most part. If we agree on the facts, but not the conclusions that are drawn from them, I think that's far better than having two sides each with unrelated bases for their arguments. I just don't see how it's possible when some - though, lately it seems like most - people would rather just shout their opinion as loud and often as they can, until I give up in disgust and walk away.

 

[jasonpatterson]

Because one cannot "debate" with a liar.

Seconded. The only way I can think of to counter these sorts of direct, counterfactual statements has been to tell the truth and point out the deception for what it is. If you're going to argue with someone who can't be bothered to tell the truth and you know it ahead of time, come well armed to embarrass the snot out of them. The major problem with someone like Monckton is that his lies would be quoted as further evidence by others, thus the benefit in avoiding the debate in a high profile case.

 

[macdoc]

Good moderation.

The solution at Dawkins was to separate the science of climate change discussion which based on the mainstream and give the denidiots their own soapbox to rant in.

Sites like realclimate.org mod all comments.

A senior scientist mods the Evolution thread at Dawkins and here are the rules of engagement

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=32467

as with many things in human interaction intelligent oversight with teeth to execute = progress.

science it not about "opinion" .....

the mod teeth and claws are sharp and are wielded

6] Do NOT post content in this forum that is scientifically discredited. This means, for those who need to be told this, that ANY garbage emanating from bad apologetics websites propagandising for religious doctrines based upon theological pornography, such as the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis and other purveyors of misrepresentation of science. Any such drivel that is posted here WILL be moved instantly to Debunking Creationism where it belongs. This forum section is for proper scientific debate ONLY, and is NOT a free fire zone for creationist candyfloss.

[7] Do NOT waste the time of the moderators and administrators here by engaging in acts of proselytising or witnessing in this forum section

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are a lot of good ideas here. [begins serious contemplation of the problem]...

[/steps out for a beer]

 

[JJM]

Seconded. The only way I can think of to counter these sorts of direct, counterfactual statements has been to tell the truth and point out the deception for what it is. {snip}

That approach is defeated by the Gish Gallop, Duane Gish, in his allotted time, will name ten supposed problems with evolution. The scientist, in his/her/its allotted time can barely explain why just one is wrong. In any case, what (to you) is factual is, to the audience, just a difference of opinion.

You are correct about being forearmed. Before Michael Shermer debated Gish, he studied videos of previous debates and saw that Gish ingratiated himself with (the same set of) jokes seeded throughout his talk. Shermer proceeded to tell those same jokes before Gish got to them, putting Gish off his pace.

The major problem with someone like Monckton is that his lies would be quoted as further evidence by others, thus the benefit in avoiding the debate in a high profile case.

Yeah, lying for god is a sacrament.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Side issue:- Dawkins expressed shock at the fact that in some university debates, the debaters are allocated a pro- or con- side at random.

I found this rather naive from an academic of his experience.
Debate is a tool used by lawyers, politicians etc . Like any tool, it must be mastered.

Some people argue , not because they believe what they are saying, but because they like to win arguments. Before getting too steamed up, always check if this may be the case.

 

[macdoc]

Science is not law or politics where opinion actually has some weight and there is a judgement to be made by the jury/judge or the voters.

Science can only be reviewed by peers and is evidence based tho of course open to hypothesis as to the interpretation of the evidence.

So something like a debate on the place of the hobbits in the evolutionary hominid line up might be a very valid scenario when conducted between two peer scientists in the field.

With a lack of peer debate, students should be limited to traditional areas like the death penalty etc where there is a societal set of choices to be made.
Even something like should Truman have used the nuke option is fair game.

The nature of science is not the same as politics or law and the difference should be respected.

Watch the Nova series

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

Is worthwhile to see how the difference is laid out before the judge by a scientist. It's worth the time.

 

[shadron]

Side issue:- Dawkins expressed shock at the fact that in some university debates, the debaters are allocated a pro- or con- side at random.

I found this rather naive from an academic of his experience.
Debate is a tool used by lawyers, politicians etc . Like any tool, it must be mastered.

Some people argue , not because they believe what they are saying, but because they like to win arguments. Before getting too steamed up, always check if this may be the case.

That is indeed teh case for academic debate. The National Forensic League^WP yearly establishes a single debate topic for high schools (at least they did in my time), and you were expected to be able to debate either side upon a toss of a coin. Affirmative went first and established a case; negative followed and only needed to prove the case was illogical or non-functional in some way. OTOH, the affirmative case generally became tougher and more bullet-proof as the year wore on. Debating the negative is always easier, so the randomness is used to even the playing field.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

IT's like McCarthy et al on the Doctors. They even said they didn't want certain people there! (Anyone experienced in taking their arguments apart effectively)
They come in armed with lies (saying vaccines aren't tested, etc.) and the "other side" is left agog. It's not a debate, it's just media time and face time for the uscrupulous side.

Anyone facing creationists, antivaxxers, etc. needs to come prepared, and knowing what unfactual arguments will be thrown at them. Don't even try to get a point across of your own, just debunk debunk debunk. Debate them, and show them that their nonfacts won't stand a chance because you can take them all apart. I admire Phil Plait's website for that reason. He knows in depth what he needs to take apart, and only after that he imparts sanity.

Even better, on the doctors or other shows, leave the antivaxxers out now, since they've had their time and got to successfully ban prepared experts. Just quote what they said previously, and bring in the actual previously banned experts to explain why the lies are false, and then (only after that) present the facts. The unfactual "side" has had their time already and now their attempts need to be defused clearly and completely.

If you actually have to face them though, spend your time taking apart the falsehoods and then inject the reality afterwards, only after the falsehood has been obliterated. Know the other arguments completely. Laugh in the face of the lies and take them apart. I've seen so many people "lose" the debate because they didn't expect what they got hit with. Expect the unexpected.