4 ms·

A fact-check doesn't need to be done by an authority. Pointing out logic errors (i.e. correlation != causation, loops in chain of reasoning) in the argumentati

by clktmr 6y ago

A fact-check doesn't need to be done by an authority. Pointing out logic errors (i.e. correlation != causation, loops in chain of reasoning) in the argumentation can be done by anyone, and be understood by anyone willing to think.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> Pointing out logic errors ... can be done by anyone, and be understood by anyone willing to think. Human beings are social animals, and people are likely to bristle at someone trying to poke holes in their worldview in that way, unless they have already established some kind of rapport. (Even the Socratic method expressed in Plato’s dialogues was practiced on people who belonged to the same city-state and social class as Socrates – and he eventually got charged and sentenced to death regardless.) This is why one of the methods advocated for in curing people of conspiracy-theory thinking, is providing them a warm and supportive atmosphere where they feel part of a community, and not trying to challenge their ideas head on.
- TravHatesMe 6y ago
  > This is why one of the methods advocated for in curing people of conspiracy-theory thinking, is providing them a warm and supportive atmosphere where they feel part of a community, and not trying to challenge their ideas head on. Very interesting. I guess by creating a network of trust, they can begin to trust information from outside sources. Where can I find information about this method? I have a friend that is deeply into conspiracy theories. The "head-on" approach has not worked, any advice appreciated. It's sad to hear that people give up on life-long relationships, I know I have a limit too but I try to remember who they were and recognize that they have good hearts but unhealthy minds.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
That assumes the other party is acting in good faith; one can probably point out logical errors to the non-conspiracy arguer as well. I mean (bear with me), you say the coronavirus is real because scientists say so? Which scientists? You're using weasel words and you're appealing to authority.
- blix 6y ago
  Ultimately, almost all arguments against conspiracy theories boil down to appeals to authority. Only a few people have personal evidence of the moon landing, the rest are relying on authority. The main issue with convincing people who believe in conspiracy to return to orthodoxy is that there aren't many tools beyond appeal to authority. If your only tactics are appeal to authority and bullying you are not going to win many hearts and minds.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    The threshold for self experimentation is raising though. One can buy a plane ticket or launch a rocket with a camera to see that the earth is not flat. Telescopes that can see evidence of humans reaching the moon are more attainable. My guess is that's why more widely believed theories are increasingly elaborate or are those that require more effort to disprove. Religions too seem to be evolving to increasingly abstract beliefs or face ever more mental gymnastics to justify. (Part of the reason I'm no longer a believer.)

by clktmr 6y ago

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

> Pointing out logic errors ... can be done by anyone, and be understood by anyone willing to think. Human beings are social animals, and people are likely to bristle at someone trying to poke holes in their worldview in that way, unless they have already established some kind of rapport. (Even the Socratic method expressed in Plato’s dialogues was practiced on people who belonged to the same city-state and social class as Socrates – and he eventually got charged and sentenced to death regardless.) This is why one of the methods advocated for in curing people of conspiracy-theory thinking, is providing them a warm and supportive atmosphere where they feel part of a community, and not trying to challenge their ideas head on.

TravHatesMe 6y ago
> This is why one of the methods advocated for in curing people of conspiracy-theory thinking, is providing them a warm and supportive atmosphere where they feel part of a community, and not trying to challenge their ideas head on. Very interesting. I guess by creating a network of trust, they can begin to trust information from outside sources. Where can I find information about this method? I have a friend that is deeply into conspiracy theories. The "head-on" approach has not worked, any advice appreciated. It's sad to hear that people give up on life-long relationships, I know I have a limit too but I try to remember who they were and recognize that they have good hearts but unhealthy minds.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

That assumes the other party is acting in good faith; one can probably point out logical errors to the non-conspiracy arguer as well. I mean (bear with me), you say the coronavirus is real because scientists say so? Which scientists? You're using weasel words and you're appealing to authority.

blix 6y ago
Ultimately, almost all arguments against conspiracy theories boil down to appeals to authority. Only a few people have personal evidence of the moon landing, the rest are relying on authority. The main issue with convincing people who believe in conspiracy to return to orthodoxy is that there aren't many tools beyond appeal to authority. If your only tactics are appeal to authority and bullying you are not going to win many hearts and minds.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  The threshold for self experimentation is raising though. One can buy a plane ticket or launch a rocket with a camera to see that the earth is not flat. Telescopes that can see evidence of humans reaching the moon are more attainable. My guess is that's why more widely believed theories are increasingly elaborate or are those that require more effort to disprove. Religions too seem to be evolving to increasingly abstract beliefs or face ever more mental gymnastics to justify. (Part of the reason I'm no longer a believer.)