The reason debunking is such a fruitless endeavor

[The Charnel Expanse]

http://www.alternet.org/media/15142...hen_they're_confronted_with_the_truth/?page=1

What should be evident from the studies on the backfire effect is you can never win an argument online. When you start to pull out facts and figures, hyperlinks and quotes, you are actually making the opponent feel as though they are even more sure of their position than before you started the debate. As they match your fervor, the same thing happens in your skull. The backfire effect pushes both of you deeper into your original beliefs.

 

[Greedo]

The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.

I was just talking to my mother about this. Whatever happens, conspiracy theorists will inevitably make it fit their stupid beliefs. It can always be disinfo if it doesn't fit at all.

 

[sadhatter]

the problem is that if we didn't, then they would just say " So where are all the common people standing up for the official ct?".

The premise that people don't change when shown wrong, ( especially in the 'don't be a dick' sense.') simply doesn't fly with me. For one simple reason, it works, with me. And i cannot be the only reasonable person out there.

I learned to sing, because i sucked at it, and got that information constantly and unfiltered.

I learned to write better because my efforts were tripe, and again, this was pointed out at length.

And more to the point i got torn from the clutches of woo, from NWO crap, to Sylvia browne, because of a simple, dickish statement " Have you ever read the other side of the argument, seriously?"

Maybe 98 out of 100 ct'ers will just hand wave things away, but those 2 that don't are still real people that could be leading a much more productive and realistic life sans CTs.

 

[The Charnel Expanse]

the problem is that if we didn't, then they would just say " So where are all the common people standing up for the official ct?".

The premise that people don't change when shown wrong, ( especially in the 'don't be a dick' sense.') simply doesn't fly with me. For one simple reason, it works, with me. And i cannot be the only reasonable person out there.

I learned to sing, because i sucked at it, and got that information constantly and unfiltered.

I learned to write better because my efforts were tripe, and again, this was pointed out at length.

And more to the point i got torn from the clutches of woo, from NWO crap, to Sylvia browne, because of a simple, dickish statement " Have you ever read the other side of the argument, seriously?"

Maybe 98 out of 100 ct'ers will just hand wave things away, but those 2 that don't are still real people that could be leading a much more productive and realistic life sans CTs.

I'm in the same boat.
But perhaps we're part of a tiny minority. I've run into too many people who simply refuse to own up to the flaws in their own beliefs no matter how much evidence to the contrary they were provided to question the truth of this premise.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The mistake in the presumption is that "debunking" - or in other terms: Fact based debate illustrating the errors and misrepresentations of a poorly constructed stance - is done for the benefit of the oppponent. Yes, sometimes they see the light, but there are two groups that benefit more from it:

1. Bystanders
2. You yourself

Too often, the pseudoscientist/crackpot/conspiracy peddler is too invested in his/her belief to actually change. They've actually developed an immunity to cognitive dissonance in order to hold their beliefs, and because of that, I've stopped thinking that there's much hope for those folks. But occasionally, you'll see someone who's otherwise rational and merely suffered the misfortune of hearing the woo side of an argument first. They learn from the debate.

And really, you end up learning a lot yourself. It's the same phenomenon that teachers always testify to when they say they learned as much from their students as their students did from them. I know way more than I did before about the engineering issues surrounding 9/11, as well as very small details that nonetheless are important about the event (for example: The isolated, individual air traffic controller responses that led the FAA and US Air Force/Air National Guard to not even realize what was happening until after the first plane had struck). And my delivery of facts and arguments about that event has sharpened as well.

Debate opponents can sometimes see the light, but they're not the only audience of a fact-based refutation to a piece of crockpottery.

 

[jargon buster]

Having spent most of my time on freeman sites I have come to the conclusion that its no point debating with the converts as they are only a danger to themselves and I couldn't care less about them.
Kind of like telling the guy walking around town with a billboard saying "the end is nigh" he's wrong, whats the point, he's too far gone to believe you now.

Its the newbies and lurkers that need to be able to witness the other side of the argument.
Freeman sites are notoriously bad for editing post and banning people who don't toe the freeman line.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Having spent most of my time on freeman sites I have come to the conclusion that its no point debating with the converts as they are only a danger to themselves and I couldn't care less about them.
Kind of like telling the guy walking around town with a billboard saying "the end is nigh" he's wrong, whats the point, he's too far gone to believe you now.

Its the newbies and lurkers that need to be able to witness the other side of the argument.
Freeman sites are notoriously bad for editing post and banning people who don't toe the freeman line.

I think this is far too broad a brush.

How do you explain the devoted way down the rabbit hole types who've come around, though? There are a number of posters here who've mentioned that they were devoted conspiradroids in the past. We've witnessed a couple of "conversions" in the time I've been here, too.

 

[jargon buster]

I think this is far too broad a brush.

How do you explain the devoted way down the rabbit hole types who've come around, though? There are a number of posters here who've mentioned that they were devoted conspiradroids in the past. We've witnessed a couple of "conversions" in the time I've been here, too.

Maybe it is a broad brush, but its my experience with people on FMOTL sites.
I couldn't really care less about Apollohoaxers and 911 truthers as its just harmless waffle.
Who cares if we went to the moon?
Who cares if it was planes or soundwaves?

the freemen nonsense is actually harmful to the people who try it.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Maybe it is a broad brush, but its my experience with people on FMOTL sites.
I couldn't really care less about Apollohoaxers and 911 truthers as its just harmless waffle.
Who cares if we went to the moon?
Who cares if it was planes or soundwaves?

the freemen nonsense is actually harmful to the people who try it.

As are homeopathy, quack mediciine, spiritualist readings and a number of other variations on woo. Many of those adherents appear just as lost as 911 conspiradroids and FOTL jackasses.

I'm an adherent to keeping the fence-sitters informed, by the way. I've often said that about 911 Truth debating. But I don't think you should dismiss all True Believers as beyond rational thinking.

 

[jargon buster]

But I don't think you should dismiss all True Believers as beyond rational thinking.

I don't, I just don't want to waste my time telling them otherwise.
Thats why you ask them to post evidence of their claims then provide evidence to the contrary, that way they see the absurdity of their argument, if they don't, so what?
Its silly to try and tell someone they are wrong, its far better to let them find it out for themselves.

 

[AnnoyingPony]

I went away from 9/11 truth after reading through this, and stopped believing in woo medicine after a long, long time on Skepdic. It was emotionally difficult for me at first because it went against everything I had been told to believe, but I think the reason I am who am I today is because I kept an open mind.

 

[Tricky]

I think this is far too broad a brush.

How do you explain the devoted way down the rabbit hole types who've come around, though? There are a number of posters here who've mentioned that they were devoted conspiradroids in the past. We've witnessed a couple of "conversions" in the time I've been here, too.

Yes, this, and also we should note that we get a lot of "lurker" traffic here. There are quite a number of people who may be "CT-Curious" who pop in to see what is being said and who makes the most sense. The latest edition of Skeptical Inquirer specifically mentioned JREF as a great debunking site.

And another thing is that changes to people (as AnnoyingPony points out) don't happen instantaneously. Bits of logic and reason work their way into people over time. Having been here for almost ten years, I've noticed some people who believe paranormal things actually using the arguments that people have tried to explain to them. Often they use it wrong, but at least you know they were listening.

So don't give up hope because the bomastic CT-er remains full of bombast even after lots of explanation. He is not your only audience.

 

[Mudcat]

I'm in the same boat.
But perhaps we're part of a tiny minority.

A minority, perhaps, but not alone. I myself used to buy into CTs as well.

 

[Giraffe107]

I'm a lurker in the Conspiracy Theories section, and I appreciate the effort that debunkers go to. I've learned a lot of valuable information.

 

[BobHaulk]

I've a hardcore 9/11 truther friend and he just won't accept he's talking mince. He won't watch any debunking video's nor will he come here and debate with the jrefers. According to him there is no point as it is beyond any doubt that 9/11 was an inside job. Strangely though when asked how them buildings fell he say's he don't know but he does know that it wasn't how the official report tells it. I used to care but now i don't and i put this down to my use of the Bach flower remedy, Rescue Remedy. Helps me gain control of my thoughts and stops me from poking him in the eye with a pencil.

 

[Pup]

We all know people who cling to their emotional beliefs with close-minded tenacity, regardless of evidence, so yeah, I get the article. It's like the old saying, you can't reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

But there seems to be a bit of naivete in the examples given in the article, or maybe the examples just aren't explained fully enough. For example:

Geoffrey Munro at the University of California and Peter Ditto at Kent State University concocted a series of fake scientific studies in 1997. One set of studies said homosexuality was probably a mental illness. The other set suggested homosexuality was normal and natural. They then separated subjects into two groups; one group said they believed homosexuality was a mental illness and one did not. Each group then read the fake studies full of pretend facts and figures suggesting their worldview was wrong. On either side of the issue, after reading studies which did not support their beliefs, most people didn’t report an epiphany, a realization they’ve been wrong all these years. Instead, they said the issue was something science couldn’t understand.

The subjects weren't living in a vacuum. They'd surely been exposed to other reports before these. I propose that it would be silly to expect a person to suddenly have an epiphany because one report contradicted all they'd used to base their opinion on until then. If I believed the new report to be true, yet it contradicted previous ones, then the logical conclusion would be something like science doesn't have the answers yet.

If people are supposed to be that easily manipulated, they could fall for any hoax.

Another example:

In 1992, Peter Ditto and David Lopez conducted a study in which subjects dipped little strips of paper into cups filled with saliva. The paper wasn’t special, but the psychologists told half the subjects the strips would turn green if he or she had a terrible pancreatic disorder and told the other half it would turn green if they were free and clear. For both groups, they said the reaction would take about 20 seconds. The people who were told the strip would turn green if they were safe tended to wait much longer to see the results, far past the time they were told it would take. When it didn’t change colors, 52 percent retested themselves. The other group, the ones for whom a green strip would be very bad news, tended to wait the 20 seconds and move on. Only 18 percent retested.

Again, most people probably know they feel healthy or have had a good report from a physical lately, so they actually have prior evidence that would lead them to expect a good outcome.

A bad outcome would be a major life-changing event, affecting everything from career plans to health insurance. Only the most gullible would immediately accept an unexpected, major announcement at face value and act on it without double-checking.

I'm not sure why gullibility, as tested for in those experiments, is supposed to be good. They seem the opposite of the Milgram experiment. Rather than showing that people tend to bow to what authority figures tell them in official settings, it shows people are skeptical of information that doesn't fit their past experience, even when presented as hoaxed scientific studies or with the veneer of a medical test. Not sure that's bad.

 

[Brainster]

If you approach debunking from the standpoint that you will convert a true believer, then you are destined for frustration. If you approach it from the standpoint that you are doing it to prevent more people from becoming infected with the conspiracy theory, you will have more success.

That said, there are some successes in enlightening the faithful.

 

[Johny2x4]

I was almost in danger of becoming a CT. Mostly because I got into arguments with a CT on another board and I was impressed by his eloquence and certanty of it, while I was not able to put decent arguments. I was almost afraid he was right. Then I was directed here by another person and realized that was not the case.

While I´m not able to put up the same level of detail that dude puts out, at least here I find people debuking his theories.

 

[dudalb]

If you approach debunking from the standpoint that you will convert a true believer, then you are destined for frustration. If you approach it from the standpoint that you are doing it to prevent more people from becoming infected with the conspiracy theory, you will have more success.

That said, there are some successes in enlightening the faithful.

QFT. You probaby won't change the minds of the hardcore crackpots, but you can show the bystanders how batcrap crazy the crackpots are.

 

[Dinwar]

The mistake in the presumption is that "debunking" - or in other terms: Fact based debate illustrating the errors and misrepresentations of a poorly constructed stance - is done for the benefit of the oppponent. Yes, sometimes they see the light, but there are two groups that benefit more from it:

1. Bystanders
   [*]You yourself

This, with the important part bolded.

The issue is that if you do nothing to stop crackpots in your field, you are tacitely supporting them. Sure, an engineer coming to JREF and arguing with a few idiots is largely a symbolic thing, but it's a NECESSARY symbolic action. Despite the fact that there are Creationists paleontologists I can proudly say "That's not me", and show evidence of what I personally have done to combat it. It never comes up in conversation, but it's a matter of knowing it myself. If I failed to even try, I'd be implicitely supporting the Creationists.

Mom always said "If you lie with dogs, you get fleas." Debunking is my way of kicking the dog out of my bed.

When you start to pull out facts and figures, hyperlinks and quotes, you are actually making the opponent feel as though they are even more sure of their position than before you started the debate. As they match your fervor, the same thing happens in your skull. The backfire effect pushes both of you deeper into your original beliefs.

A friend on a different forum had someone say "You have to use citations? Obviously you don't know your own possition that well!" She had to calmly explain to the person (well....mostly calmly) that citations were proof that you've actually done your research and understand the pertanent facts. One reason I always enjoy debating her--we both tend to be farely fact-oriented, so the one with the best data wins. This is pretty much the direct opposite of what the article in the OP is talking about. It sounds like the OP's article is dealing with almost purely emotional debators, people who refuse to examine the evidence. In the case of the crackpot, that's necessarily true--that's why they're crackpots, it's a job requirement. In the case of the person with actual data? I'm not so sure it's a justifiable description.

The real issue for us fact-based people is boredom. There hasn't been any real advancement in Creationism in 150 years. The 9/11 Truth movement hasn't changed much since....well, 9/12. I've been hearing the same Moon hoax nonsense for 20 years. After a certain point, active minds get bored telling people the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.