arguments » 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 »

Logical Fallacies in Advertising

Awhile ago I wrote about Advertisements and Logical Fallacies. It was basically just an overview, but this time I thought I’d list some of the actual fallacies in advertising. No matter where we go, we’re bombarded with advertising and marketing. While companies have to follow the letter of the law and be “truthful” there are loopholes and ways to avoid following the spirit of the law.

This is part of a series on Logical Fallacies.

People are highly suggestible. That’s just the way it is. I’m a skeptic and I still fall prey to suggestibility. Usually I catch myself and then put on my critical thinking cap, but it happens to the best of us. The fact that companies (anyone using a marketing campaign, including governments) go out of their way to trick us into buying their stuff, meaning that more than ever we have to be critical thinkers in our everyday lives.

Ad Hominem: often used in political campaigns where some character flaw is brought up. If it doesn’t have anything to do with their ability to do their job, it’s irrelevant, and therefore a logical fallacy.

Appeal to Emotion: any emotion can be exploited. If they manipulate your feelings of sympathy, sexuality, anger, fear, love, pity, pride, flattery, wishful thinking, ignorance, etc., the company then snags you. You make a decision based on that feeling. No logic or real benefit is addressed. This is a type of Red Herring.

The Bandwagon: everyone else is doing it or buying it so you should too. But that is irrelevant. Even if 99 people in 100 buy X toothpaste, it doesn’t mean X toothpaste is a good product. It just means the company is good at marketing. Do your research! Read the rest of this entry »

Arguments For God’s Existence Are Wrong – Teleological Argument

Recently, the Morgantown Atheists hosted a satirical night of (re)Conversion where our Brights friend Rachel tried all the arguments she could think of to convince us to turn back to god. No one took her up on her offer. But she did go through a bunch of classical arguments that I thought I might share with you. It’s good to hear what people use as excuses for believing in god, and it’s good to have sound arguments against those beliefs.

Let’s start out with the Teleological Argument.

Teleology: the philosophical study of design and purpose. The supposition that there is purpose or direction in the works and processes of nature.

Teleological Argument: the Argument from Design: argues for the existence of god or a creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design or direction in nature.

Here’s the basic argument:

The universe is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
Therefore the universe must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise or purposeful being.
god is a sentient, intelligent, wise or purposeful being.
Therefore god exists.

You can substitute just about anything in for the universe. The eye, humans, the fundamental constants of the universe, etc.

Many great men have used this argument over the centuries, but that doesn’t make it valid. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Cicero to name a few. Cicero started the Watchmaker Analogy:

“When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?” (Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 34) Read the rest of this entry »

Why I Am Not A Christian

by Bertrand Russell

Russell delivered this lecture on March 6, 1927 to the National Secular Society, South London Branch, at Battersea Town Hall. Published in pamphlet form in that same year, the essay subsequently achieved new fame with Paul Edwards’ edition of Russell’s book, Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays … (1957).

As your Chairman has told you, the subject about which I am going to speak to you tonight is “Why I Am Not a Christian.” Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make out what one means by the word Christian. It is used these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some people mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a good life. In that sense I suppose there would be Christians in all sects and creeds; but I do not think that that is the proper sense of the word, if only because it would imply that all the people who are not Christians — all the Buddhists, Confucians, Mohammedans, and so on — are not trying to live a good life. I do not mean by a Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian. The word does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning now as it had in the times of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. In those days, if a man said that he was a Christian it was known what he meant. You accepted a whole collection of creeds which were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of those creeds you believed with the whole strength of your convictions.

What Is a Christian?
Nowadays it is not quite that. We have to be a little more vague in our meaning of Christianity. I think, however, that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The first is one of a dogmatic nature — namely, that you must believe in God and immortality. If you do not believe in those two things, I do not think that you can properly call yourself a Christian. Then, further than that, as the name implies, you must have some kind of belief about Christ. The Mohammedans, for instance, also believe in God and in immortality, and yet they would not call themselves Christians. I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ, I do not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian. Of course, there is another sense, which you find in Whitaker’s Almanack and in geography books, where the population of the world is said to be divided into Christians, Mohammedans, Buddhists, fetish worshipers, and so on; and in that sense we are all Christians. The geography books count us all in, but that is a purely geographical sense, which I suppose we can ignore.Therefore I take it that when I tell you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you two different things: first, why I do not believe in God and in immortality; and, secondly, why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, although I grant him a very high degree of moral goodness. Read the rest of this entry »

You Are Wrong Because:

Hello Everyone! I hope, if you’re in the States, you had a happy 3 day weekend (all non-Americans, I hope you had a happy regular weekend!). Mine was packed full of socializing centered around the annual family reunion. Needless to say I’ve been quite busy, but I did want to show you something my friend Rachel over at Morgantown Brights shared with me since we’re always talking about logical fallacies here.

Nothing can reduce your happiness faster than an argument with an irrational co-worker. You can’t win irrational people over to your side by your superior reasoning abilities. And you can’t talk them into getting inside abandoned refrigerators and closing the door to see if the light goes out. There simply aren’t that many abandoned refrigerators. If you use the refrigerator in the break room, everyone will start whining about how there’s no room for yogurt. Until there are more refrigerators, or less yogurt, you will find yourself in frustrating discussions that can have no good endings.Trying to win an argument with an irrational person is like trying to teach a cat to snorkel by providing written instructions. No matter how clear your instructions, it won’t work. Your best strategy is to reduce the time you spend in that sort of situation.

I have developed a solution to this problem. It is based on the fact that irrational people are easily persuaded by anything that has been published. It doesn’t matter who published it, or what the context is, or how inaccurate it is. Once something is published, it’s as persuasive as anything else that’s ever been published. So I figure that what you need is a publication that supports all of your arguments no matter what they are. This is that publication.

I have collected the most common arguments made by irrational people into a handy reference guide and titled it “You Are Wrong Because.” Circle the irrational arguments that apply to your situation and give a copy to the person who is bugging you. Look smug, as though this were conclusive evidence of your rightness. A rational person might point out that just because something is written down doesn’t make it so. But since you’re not giving the list to anyone with that much insight, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that you will feel as though you brought closure to a potentially frustrating situation.

You Are Wrong Because:

For your convenience, I have circled the brain malfunction(s) that most closely resemble(s) the one(s) you recently made on the topic of (fill in topic): Read the rest of this entry »

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 »

The Science of Persuasion

Logical Fallacies in Advertising

Arguments For God’s Existence Are Wrong – Teleological Argument

Why I Am Not A Christian

You Are Wrong Because:

Logical Fallacy 7: The Red Herring

Logical Fallacy 6: Argumentum Verbosium: Proof By Intimidation

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