tips » Heaving Dead Cats

The Science of Persuasion

The other day I gave you a transcript from a lecture. The article was titled Why People Defend Their Dogma. At the end I promised a follow-up with some practical advice. And here it is. They did another episode of Reasonable Doubts, Episode 70, where they talked about how to persuade people, especially about science. They talked about a professor who has done some studies. I have written up a transcript of the salient parts of the conversation.

Partial Transcript:

37:18 If the goal is not to score points, if the goal is actually to persuade people, if the morally superior goal is to win minds rather than just make people look stupid, then tone really does matter. Psychology has some things to say about how we should best go about trying to persuade people to really, any position, but even more specifically to a scientific position that they may otherwise feel threatened by, or may conflict with their worldview.

38:07 It’s an empirical issue. What is likely to be persuasive or off-putting or not is a testable question. There are people right now researching how you package factual issues and seeing if that affects the rate at which people believe, disbelieve or deny them.

One of the examples of this, there is a researcher who’s name is Geoffrey Monroe from Towson University who has done some studies on peoples’ willingness to agree with belief consisting information as opposed to information that’s inconsistent with beliefs as a function of things like how the information is presented to them.

So he had a piece on Science and Religion Today where he folded this into the debate about, do you alienate people by using blunt language that offends them. The theory behind this that people don’t, as most people probably realize, they don’t simply make up their mind on the basis of factual, cognitive, cold type calculations. This is one aspect that frustrates us, is that when we are debating with somebody, it quickly becomes apparent that the facts of evolution in some cases won’t make a difference, if the person has an emotional investment.

So people hold attitudes because they are linked to aspects of your self-identity. As stated in Terror Management Theory, if you have a worldview that can be threatened, you get defensive. You circle your wagons as if attacked. In the same way, with factual issues like scientific-type things, religious people hold these as part of their broader self-identity. Read the rest of this entry »

In Search Of Zingers

Inspiration comes from many sources. Today my mother told me that some jehovah’s witnesses came a-calling and she wished she had some good, quick zingers to say to let them know she’s a lost cause and they need to leave and never come back. I thought that was rather funny so I’m throwing it out to you.

If someone wants to proseletyze, what is a good, quick response to let them know they are dealing with a godless heathen who is a lost cause?

Please comment with your suggestions. Then I’ll do another post with a nice neat list we can keep nearby for when someone wants to “tell us the good news”.

Logical Fallacy 7: The Red Herring

A Red Herring is a diversionary tactic. It is an argument brought up in response to another argument which does not address the real issue. There are many types of Red Herring arguments. Sometimes this can be a deliberate attempt to divert the argument and other times it might be done in ignorance. Usually this is an appeal to emotion as well.

The term comes from fox hunting. They used smoked red herrings dragged across the path of the fox to distract the hounds from the fox’s trail.

This is Part 7 in a series about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacious arguments. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share.

Types of Red Herring Fallacies: (from Wikipedia’s list) Read the rest of this entry »

Logical Fallacy 6: Argumentum Verbosium: Proof By Intimidation

Argumentum verbosium is also known as Proof by Intimidation, or Proof by Verbosity. It refers to an argument that is so complex, so long-winded and so poorly presented by the arguer that you are obliged to accept it, simply to avoid being forced to sift through its minute details.

This fallacy is epitomized by this lovely statement, “If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit.”

This is Part 6 in a series I introduced awhile ago about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We are going through one fallacy at a time. There are many types of fallacies. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur. Please comment or email if there’s a particular fallacy you want me to tackle, or if you have success with refuting an argument using a good technique you can share. Read the rest of this entry »

Logical Fallacy 5: Argument From Authority

(also called Appeal to Authority) Stating a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it’s true. The claimant emphasizes the many years of experience and/or formal degrees held by the person or organization making the claim.

This argument is the opposite of the Ad Hominem Argument because the arguer appeals to positive characteristics of the source to support their argument, such as its perceived authority. If an advertisement shows someone wearing a white labcoat or a stern business suit, that is an appeal to authority.

This is Part 5 in a series I introduced the other day about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We’re going to go through one fallacy at a time. There are about 20 main fallacies altogether. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur.

While it’s reasonable to take into account the proper background of education and credentials, or to be suspicious of someone without such expertise, it must inevitably come down to logic and evidence to support the claim, not the person promoting it.

A good authority supports a position because there is evidence or other justifiable reasons that the argument merits, not the other way around. So, good scientists do not attach significance to their own authority. The theory needs to stand on its own and be peer reviewed. There is no need for an appeal to authority. Read the rest of this entry »

Logical Fallacy 4: Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

Argumentum Ad ignorantiam means the Argument from Ignorance. It basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. This logical fallacy can also be called the Negative Proof Argument, or Appeal to Ignorance.

This is Part 4 in a series I introduced the other day about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We’re going to go through one fallacy at a time. There are about 20 main fallacies altogether. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur.

James stated it quite perfectly in the comments of our last fallacy lesson:

Atheist: “You cannot prove that God exists.”

Theist: “Oh yeah? Well, you cannot prove that God DOESN’T exist!”

Of course this brings up the rule: The burden of proof lies on the person making the positive claim. Basically, if you state that god exists, the burden of proof lies on you.

Edit: I found this video today. Here is Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson explaining it:

Read the rest of this entry »

Logical Fallacy 3: Tu quoque (you too)

Tu quoque is Latin for “You too”. So you justify your wrong action because someone else also does it. “My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours.”

This is Part 3 in a series I introduced the other day about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We’re going to go through one fallacy at a time. There are about 20 main fallacies altogether. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur.

My mother did this on the phone the other day. We were talking about religion when my mother told me I should start a cult or my own religion, because they make so much money. (WTF?) Read the rest of this entry »

The Science of Persuasion

In Search Of Zingers

Logical Fallacy 7: The Red Herring

Logical Fallacy 6: Argumentum Verbosium: Proof By Intimidation

Logical Fallacy 5: Argument From Authority

Logical Fallacy 4: Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

Logical Fallacy 3: Tu quoque (you too)

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Our Cats

Pages

Dead Cats Archive

Neece & Butch’s Zazzle Designs – Sir Lee Tees

Vinyl Decals

Meta

Subscribe to and Contact HDC

Subscribe to HDC by email

Tag Happy

Blogroll

Friends of HDC

Neece & Jenny’s Zazzle Designs

Happy Atheist Love