Definitely agree with the article. Argumentation and rational debate are not great tools for changing a person's mind. I'm curious if there are other styles of interaction that can change a...
Definitely agree with the article. Argumentation and rational debate are not great tools for changing a person's mind. I'm curious if there are other styles of interaction that can change a person's perspective.
One I've come across is Street Epistemology, which is a conversational tool for exploring the basis of a belief. For anyone who's curious, here's an example from Anthony Magnabosco's channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmFyiLICAa8
It's definitely not a silver bullet and has its own difficulties, though. For one, it doesn't work very well in online settings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpA4mm_8Q7M
Still, I've had mostly positive experiences with my own limited use of the technique. I wonder if there are other methods of communication out there that can be used to productively engage with a person's ideas when they run counter to my own.
One thing that discouraged me from pursuing street epistemology is that it's main purpose, since it's inception, is to reduce religious belief. I don't concur with the notion that religious belief...
One thing that discouraged me from pursuing street epistemology is that it's main purpose, since it's inception, is to reduce religious belief.
I don't concur with the notion that religious belief must be necessarily opposed; this greatly limits the persuasiveness of the method, in my view. I'd be more interested on a method that focuses on intellectual flexibility as a whole.
Maybe I'm privileged because I never felt constrained in my beliefs, and have little need to combat an opposing side or defend my own in the political arena.
I am religious but don't feel a need to engage with preachers on either side of the divide with the purpose of persuasion. The existence of non-believers doesn't bother me in the slightest, and I frequently agree with them, to the surprise of some.
I don't think that makes a lot of sense ; to judge the method you need to look at the results it produce (does it work?), not the subject matter it's applied to. Plus religious beliefs are a prime...
One thing that discouraged me from pursuing street epistemology is that it's main purpose, since it's inception, is to reduce religious belief.
I don't concur with the notion that religious belief must be necessarily opposed; this greatly limits the persuasiveness of the method, in my view.
I don't think that makes a lot of sense ; to judge the method you need to look at the results it produce (does it work?), not the subject matter it's applied to. Plus religious beliefs are a prime example of deep held believes that are often taught from a young age and constantly reinforced through all kind of means, so it's actually a very good test to see if the method is any good.
While I don't think SE is necessarily always the best honest way to convince someone, from what I've seen it seems to often be better than more confrontational approaches.
Community matters. The method has a defined purpose which reduces its comprehensiveness. It is axiomatically anti-religious belief, while religious arguments are not inherently illogical, false,...
Community matters.
The method has a defined purpose which reduces its comprehensiveness. It is axiomatically anti-religious belief, while religious arguments are not inherently illogical, false, or even harmful. SE initially seemed to me like an interesting method for intellectual pursuit, but the community is largely concerned with debunking religion[1].
They're affable atheists.
I happen to enjoy the company of affable atheists but have no interest in the collective predicaments of a group for whom such fundamental conclusions are already set from the start (especially in face of the focus on intellectual flexibility they seemingly want to propagate).
In other words, to me it is not enough to use nice words and rhetorical savviness, one must be actually engaged.
As a non-American, it is hard for me to ignore the fact that everything in the US context tends to be heavily polarized as a matter of existential necessity. Even when you make a point to not pick a side, you kinda have to pick sides to survive. But I am not American, and even in my own country I'm heavily withdrawn... I'd much rather have nice conversations than debates. And SE frequently seems like a meta-debate disguised as a conversation...
[1] I mean, the foundational book is called A Manual for Creating Atheists...
Agreed. I think online discourse has been poisoned in large part because everything is a debate. Every conversation about anything slightly contentious turns into people bludgeoning each other...
I'd much rather have nice conversations than debates.
Agreed. I think online discourse has been poisoned in large part because everything is a debate. Every conversation about anything slightly contentious turns into people bludgeoning each other with their opinions trying to win the argument when in reality nobody is changing their minds -- not the other person in the argument and not the audience.
I sometimes struggle with this and I imagine many do as well but in my opinion when someone comments with a different opinion than yours rolling your eyes and moving on is often the best response. :)
I agree with you but personally, I don't use street epistemology to examine religious beliefs as I'm not terribly interested in exploring them. So I don't see that as being its main purpose, even...
I agree with you but personally, I don't use street epistemology to examine religious beliefs as I'm not terribly interested in exploring them. So I don't see that as being its main purpose, even if it came out of atheist communities and that's how it's usually presented online.
To me it's just a good way of exploring claims that a person might make. To give an example, if someone says something that sounds a bit prejudiced to me, I've found that using S.E. is a good way to explore what they're saying without getting into an argument and derailing the conversation. Sometimes it turns out that the person meant something other than what I thought they did, sometimes it turns out that they have some preconceived notions that could use a bit of perspective, and sometimes it turns out that I have some preconceived notions of my own. Regardless of outcome, nobody gets hurt and hopefully someone walks away from the conversation with a bit more clarity about what they think and why they think it.
Yeah, me neither. I'm not here to preach S.E., sorry if it came off that way. In my original comment, I was asking about methods of communication that can be used to productively engage with a...
Yeah, me neither. I'm not here to preach S.E., sorry if it came off that way. In my original comment, I was asking about methods of communication that can be used to productively engage with a person's perspective when it runs counter to my own. I'm genuinely curious about that subject, and only brought up S.E. as an example of one such method that I've found useful in that regard.
Two random thoughts on the first video: I'm irked by the fact that around the 6 minute mark he changes her argument from "it's ok to believe in something that you don't have good reason to believe...
Two random thoughts on the first video:
I'm irked by the fact that around the 6 minute mark he changes her argument from "it's ok to believe in something that you don't have good reason to believe so long as it's not harmful" to "it's ok to believe in something that's not true so long as it's not harmful". She accepts this reinterpretation, but I'm not sure she noticed that he moved the goal posts from beliefs being unsubstantiated to beliefs being false or potentially false. In the context of religion, the difference between those two things is really the key difference.
Around the 13 minute mark he suggests there's a dial between wanting to believe truths versus wanting to believe comforting things. This feels like a totally false choice.
Right now, I don't have a further conclusion beyond these thoughts.
RE: your first point, why does it irk you? Do you think he did that on purpose, and is arguing in bad faith? Rewatching the section of the video you're talking about, it looks to me like he is...
RE: your first point, why does it irk you? Do you think he did that on purpose, and is arguing in bad faith?
Rewatching the section of the video you're talking about, it looks to me like he is clarifying her position to make sure he understands it correctly. Repeating back what your conversation partner says in your own words is a technique in S.E. that helps make sure both people are on the same page.
I think that if Maritza had noticed what you noticed and pointed it out, Anthony would have apologized and restated her position again to make sure he understood it correctly. If that had happened, probably the conversation would have gone a different way.
I saw it more as him subtly adjusting her position to see if she’d still agree. I see value in taking a person’s known beliefs and building on them to understand the limits of their beliefs, but I...
I saw it more as him subtly adjusting her position to see if she’d still agree. I see value in taking a person’s known beliefs and building on them to understand the limits of their beliefs, but I think it should be overt (“so if you believe X, would you say you also believe X+1?”) rather than in the guise of repeating back something different (M: “I believe X”. A: “Let me repeat that back: you believe X+1”).
I realize I’m now being imprecise myself in very loosely quoting the video, but I currently can’t watch to verify I’m not exaggerating what he said.
I don't think I've seen enough to determine whether he's operating in good faith or bad faith. For what it's worth, I'm completely non-religious myself, so by default I like the overall idea of what he's getting at (making people think about their beliefs). I just prefer it to all be in good faith (and maybe it is).
I think that if Maritza had noticed what you noticed and pointed it out, Anthony would have apologized and restated her position again to make sure he understood it correctly. If that had happened, probably the conversation would have gone a different way.
I've now had a chance to watch both videos, and the second one certainly seemed to be entirely good faith. So perhaps the thing that irked me in the first video really was just a one time...
I've now had a chance to watch both videos, and the second one certainly seemed to be entirely good faith. So perhaps the thing that irked me in the first video really was just a one time thing--maybe he didn't even notice he'd made that subtle but important change.
I think your interpreting it a bit too much like a debate, there's no "goal post", you're not trying to make the person say something they don't really mean for a quick gotcha moment, and there's...
I think your interpreting it a bit too much like a debate, there's no "goal post", you're not trying to make the person say something they don't really mean for a quick gotcha moment, and there's no strictly predetermined subject. Sometimes they will switch subject if they finds something more interesting during the conversation (often a believe is backed by other ones, more fundamental).
What he's aiming for (he often says so at the end of the video) is that the person goes away and think about the questions more in her own words and see if that makes sense to her.
More about the specifics here I think it makes some sense to move to truth, because a risk of holding beliefs without good justifications is that they might be wrong, it's like a worse case scenario.
I interpreted that as saying the next generation won't believe as much nonsense as the previous generation, due to rapid transport and communication systems that have recently exploded.
I interpreted that as saying the next generation won't believe as much nonsense as the previous generation, due to rapid transport and communication systems that have recently exploded.
Sure that's a valid conclusion. I don't think that was precisely meant by the author, though. I think their conclusion is simpler and more contained, basically restating the pragmatic principles...
Sure that's a valid conclusion. I don't think that was precisely meant by the author, though.
I think their conclusion is simpler and more contained, basically restating the pragmatic principles explained before in a more holistic approach.
Definitely agree with the article. Argumentation and rational debate are not great tools for changing a person's mind. I'm curious if there are other styles of interaction that can change a person's perspective.
One I've come across is Street Epistemology, which is a conversational tool for exploring the basis of a belief. For anyone who's curious, here's an example from Anthony Magnabosco's channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmFyiLICAa8
It's definitely not a silver bullet and has its own difficulties, though. For one, it doesn't work very well in online settings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpA4mm_8Q7M
Still, I've had mostly positive experiences with my own limited use of the technique. I wonder if there are other methods of communication out there that can be used to productively engage with a person's ideas when they run counter to my own.
One thing that discouraged me from pursuing street epistemology is that it's main purpose, since it's inception, is to reduce religious belief.
I don't concur with the notion that religious belief must be necessarily opposed; this greatly limits the persuasiveness of the method, in my view. I'd be more interested on a method that focuses on intellectual flexibility as a whole.
Maybe I'm privileged because I never felt constrained in my beliefs, and have little need to combat an opposing side or defend my own in the political arena.
I am religious but don't feel a need to engage with preachers on either side of the divide with the purpose of persuasion. The existence of non-believers doesn't bother me in the slightest, and I frequently agree with them, to the surprise of some.
I don't think that makes a lot of sense ; to judge the method you need to look at the results it produce (does it work?), not the subject matter it's applied to. Plus religious beliefs are a prime example of deep held believes that are often taught from a young age and constantly reinforced through all kind of means, so it's actually a very good test to see if the method is any good.
While I don't think SE is necessarily always the best honest way to convince someone, from what I've seen it seems to often be better than more confrontational approaches.
Community matters.
The method has a defined purpose which reduces its comprehensiveness. It is axiomatically anti-religious belief, while religious arguments are not inherently illogical, false, or even harmful. SE initially seemed to me like an interesting method for intellectual pursuit, but the community is largely concerned with debunking religion[1].
They're affable atheists.
I happen to enjoy the company of affable atheists but have no interest in the collective predicaments of a group for whom such fundamental conclusions are already set from the start (especially in face of the focus on intellectual flexibility they seemingly want to propagate).
In other words, to me it is not enough to use nice words and rhetorical savviness, one must be actually engaged.
As a non-American, it is hard for me to ignore the fact that everything in the US context tends to be heavily polarized as a matter of existential necessity. Even when you make a point to not pick a side, you kinda have to pick sides to survive. But I am not American, and even in my own country I'm heavily withdrawn... I'd much rather have nice conversations than debates. And SE frequently seems like a meta-debate disguised as a conversation...
[1] I mean, the foundational book is called A Manual for Creating Atheists...
Agreed. I think online discourse has been poisoned in large part because everything is a debate. Every conversation about anything slightly contentious turns into people bludgeoning each other with their opinions trying to win the argument when in reality nobody is changing their minds -- not the other person in the argument and not the audience.
I sometimes struggle with this and I imagine many do as well but in my opinion when someone comments with a different opinion than yours rolling your eyes and moving on is often the best response. :)
I agree with you but personally, I don't use street epistemology to examine religious beliefs as I'm not terribly interested in exploring them. So I don't see that as being its main purpose, even if it came out of atheist communities and that's how it's usually presented online.
To me it's just a good way of exploring claims that a person might make. To give an example, if someone says something that sounds a bit prejudiced to me, I've found that using S.E. is a good way to explore what they're saying without getting into an argument and derailing the conversation. Sometimes it turns out that the person meant something other than what I thought they did, sometimes it turns out that they have some preconceived notions that could use a bit of perspective, and sometimes it turns out that I have some preconceived notions of my own. Regardless of outcome, nobody gets hurt and hopefully someone walks away from the conversation with a bit more clarity about what they think and why they think it.
You're entirely correct that SE can be very useful for those things.
I'm just not inclined to participating in their online venues.
Yeah, me neither. I'm not here to preach S.E., sorry if it came off that way. In my original comment, I was asking about methods of communication that can be used to productively engage with a person's perspective when it runs counter to my own. I'm genuinely curious about that subject, and only brought up S.E. as an example of one such method that I've found useful in that regard.
Oh you didn't come off like that at all ;)
Two random thoughts on the first video:
I'm irked by the fact that around the 6 minute mark he changes her argument from "it's ok to believe in something that you don't have good reason to believe so long as it's not harmful" to "it's ok to believe in something that's not true so long as it's not harmful". She accepts this reinterpretation, but I'm not sure she noticed that he moved the goal posts from beliefs being unsubstantiated to beliefs being false or potentially false. In the context of religion, the difference between those two things is really the key difference.
Around the 13 minute mark he suggests there's a dial between wanting to believe truths versus wanting to believe comforting things. This feels like a totally false choice.
Right now, I don't have a further conclusion beyond these thoughts.
RE: your first point, why does it irk you? Do you think he did that on purpose, and is arguing in bad faith?
Rewatching the section of the video you're talking about, it looks to me like he is clarifying her position to make sure he understands it correctly. Repeating back what your conversation partner says in your own words is a technique in S.E. that helps make sure both people are on the same page.
I think that if Maritza had noticed what you noticed and pointed it out, Anthony would have apologized and restated her position again to make sure he understood it correctly. If that had happened, probably the conversation would have gone a different way.
I saw it more as him subtly adjusting her position to see if she’d still agree. I see value in taking a person’s known beliefs and building on them to understand the limits of their beliefs, but I think it should be overt (“so if you believe X, would you say you also believe X+1?”) rather than in the guise of repeating back something different (M: “I believe X”. A: “Let me repeat that back: you believe X+1”).
I realize I’m now being imprecise myself in very loosely quoting the video, but I currently can’t watch to verify I’m not exaggerating what he said.
I don't think I've seen enough to determine whether he's operating in good faith or bad faith. For what it's worth, I'm completely non-religious myself, so by default I like the overall idea of what he's getting at (making people think about their beliefs). I just prefer it to all be in good faith (and maybe it is).
Agreed.
I've now had a chance to watch both videos, and the second one certainly seemed to be entirely good faith. So perhaps the thing that irked me in the first video really was just a one time thing--maybe he didn't even notice he'd made that subtle but important change.
I think your interpreting it a bit too much like a debate, there's no "goal post", you're not trying to make the person say something they don't really mean for a quick gotcha moment, and there's no strictly predetermined subject. Sometimes they will switch subject if they finds something more interesting during the conversation (often a believe is backed by other ones, more fundamental).
What he's aiming for (he often says so at the end of the video) is that the person goes away and think about the questions more in her own words and see if that makes sense to her.
More about the specifics here I think it makes some sense to move to truth, because a risk of holding beliefs without good justifications is that they might be wrong, it's like a worse case scenario.
This seems overly optimistic. Did the author state any basis for this belief that I missed?
No. Seems like just a conclusion from common sense. Not remarkably weak, in my view. Parents views do influence their children to a great extent.
I interpreted that as saying the next generation won't believe as much nonsense as the previous generation, due to rapid transport and communication systems that have recently exploded.
Sure that's a valid conclusion. I don't think that was precisely meant by the author, though.
I think their conclusion is simpler and more contained, basically restating the pragmatic principles explained before in a more holistic approach.