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