

Ask HN: How do you handle debates with non-scientists? - seertaak

I find myself getting into arguments with non-scientists and coming out of them satisfied that I've argued my case well and fairly, only to find my friends subsequently insisting that I've been "aggressive" or "rude". It bothers me, because I'm convinced that I argue in a fair- and open-minded way; it's not my fault if they're not well-informed or wrong!
======
lacker
If your friends think you have been rude, then you have been rude. That's how
"rude" works. There's no official definition for what is rude behavior or not.

Why don't you ask your friends why they find you rude and aggressive. They
probably can explain better than we can.

~~~
seertaak
That's assuming that your friends' behaviour is rational. For example, during
the debate, while I certainly held my ground confidently, I didn't raise my
voice, swear, engage in ad-hominem, belittle my opponent, or anything else
that I would consider rude. What I _did_ do is counter every statement he made
that I considered false, which was quite a few statements. Clearly this riled
him. But is it me who is to blame, or is it him for getting emotional about
the fact that he is in the wrong?

I have been a great many arguments where I have found, eventually, that I am
wrong. I can't provide any evidence, obviously, but I can assure you that I am
gracious in defeat. I simply say: "oh, that's interesting." Or "huh, I didn't
know that, maybe I'll have to think about it again". But again, I think that
comes from a) being quite confident that I'm not stupid, so that I don't have
anything to prove to anyone, and b) being a scientist and thus having had
these types of arguments with, shall we say, the creme-de-la-creme of smart-
ass debaters ;)

------
RiderOfGiraffes
I read recently (sorry - can't remember where) of a scientist at a party that
was also attended by a number of astrology (not astronomy) practitioners and
aficionados. He noticed that they were in discussion, and although some
clearly disagreed with others, they were accepting of positive points, and
offered alternatives to those points with which they disagreed.

In constrast, he noticed, the science types would attack every statement,
poking, prying, stressing, stretching, twisting, and generally trying to find
weaknesses.

This is what scientists do by nature and training, and non-scientists often
find it aggressive, intrusive, and downright rude.

I've found that striving for agreement and then working from that, is more
successful than presenting what you think is a robust rebuttal, followed by a
water-tight case. Find good points in what they say, and then lead them step
by step. Be constructive, and respect that their opinions are their opinions.
Telling them they're wrong won't help your case.

In short, you can't debate with non-scientists in the sense you mean. You need
to create consensus and build on that.

~~~
seertaak
> In short, you can't debate with non-scientists in the sense you mean.

Yep, that's the conclusion I'm led to. In this case, it wasn't possible
however: straight off the bat, for example, he declared that he's left-wing. I
happen to be a republican from the libertarian wing of the party (we seem to
be a dying breed of late), although I'm quite moderate. So the potential for
consensus was small. The argument kicked off when he said "thank god Obama is
going to get in power because he'll redress the excess of hardcore
conservatives" -- which is a bit of a howler, and I took him to task for it.
Now granted, I didn't back down, but nor did he! I don't see why _I_ should be
blamed for being rude simply for being better-informed. In fact, and my friend
agreed with me on this point, at least _I_ didn't engage in any underhanded
debating techniques that I list elsewhere on this thread.

------
khafra
If you're trying to get someone to change his views by debate, it most likely
won't work. You'd probably do well to read up on influencing people, Dale
Carnegie or NLP or something. If you're trying to convince undecided, rational
third parties, and your interlocutor is "playing fair," you could trying
proceeding from a set of assumptions, getting agreement on each assumption,
then presenting your conclusion as necessarily following.

For example, say you're trying to convince someone that String Theory is bogus
pop physics:

Seertaak: "NonScientist, would you agree that a framework must make testable
predictions to be considered a scientific theory?"

NS: "Sure, yeah."

Seertaak: "As you can see by these references I've just pulled up on my
iPhone, many physicists agree that ST hasn't made any testable predictions, so
until that changes it can't be considered a scientific theory."

NS: "You were right all along, Seertaak! You're so smart!"

~~~
seertaak
That's funny, the example you gave sort of happened during the argument. I
would painstakingly establish A. Then I would do something like A => B. Then I
would remind my opponent that we'd established A, whence B followed. At that
point, the opponent would deny that he'd agreed on A, and we're back to square
on... very frustrating!

------
russell
If you are arguing evolution against ID, forget it. Their minds are cast in
concrete and wont change. This is pretty much whenever arguing facts against
beliefs, particularly true believers. If you are arguing pseudo-science, you
are the one needing a little head cleansing.

------
yan
_it's not my fault if they're not well-informed or wrong!_

Maybe it is you?

~~~
seertaak
In this case it wasn't; the discussion was about legal activism and judicial
review. I've read several books on the subject, some essays, and several
transcripts of supreme court cases, just because I find the subject
interesting. On a more basic level, I can name the supreme court justices --
so in terms of factual knowledge, I'm quite confident I was on solid ground.

My debating partner, however, didn't really have any facts at hand, but
instead had strong opinions and essentially parroted oft-repeated truisms,
like "the supreme court is full of ultra conservatives", a claim that
certainly begs some evidence.

During the argument, I made a persistent effort to back up any claims I made
with examples or evidence. When my opponent said things that I thought were
false, I would wait for him to finish, and tell him: "I think you're wrong
because of XYZ". The first few times, it was ok, but as the argument
progressed, he just got annoyed and would become irrational. For example, he
would: \- say he hadn't said something which he patently had said just two
minutes before. In other words, a po-faced lie. \- he would ask for evidence
when I made a claim, and when I then provided evidence, he would say he knew
it and didn't want to be bored with details, without acknowledging that it was
a datapoint in favour of my position; \- he would claim I was
"oversimplifying", and when I would ask him how, he would refuse to tell me,
saying "oh it doesn't matter".

I personally really enjoy vigorous debate, and I'm quite happy to be proven
wrong. Really. For two reasons: \- I learn something, and learning something
is cool; \- I'm better prepared for the next argument! And I think to certain
extent, scientists are more at ease with the idea of being proven wrong. I
think we realize that it doesn't mean you're stupid; far from, you're just
entertaining a theory, and if the evidence contradicts it you have no
particular emotional attachment to it. Whereas I've found non-scientists to be
less accustomed to having their theory shot down, and as a result they become
more defensive (and hence irrational), which leads them to use what I would
regard as quite underhanded and dishonourable debating tactics, a la "38 Ways
To Win An Argument".

------
DanielBMarkham
What's the purpose of your argument?

If it's to prove that you are right and they are wrong -- well, sounds like
you're pretty good at that.

If it's to understand what the other person is saying and to come together
towards a common understanding of a respectful disagreement? That's mature
discussion. It's like level 20.

I find from working with really smart people that proving yourself right is
not an extremely difficult thing to do. Actually getting inside the skull of
another human and helping them understand something is much harder (and more
useful)

Depends on what you want, I guess.

