Those who dislike long posts (13 kB) or academic references, or
cross-posting, or have no interest in "Why Smart People Defend Bad
Ideas" are urged to hit the DELETE button. And if you reply PLEASE
DON'T HIT THE REPLY BUTTON unless you prune the copy of this post
that may appear in your reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise
the entire already archived post may be needlessly resent to
subscribers.
In his terse Phys-L post of 27 Nov 2005 16:03:11-0600 titled "Why
smart people defend bad ideas," Brian Whatcott wrote:
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
I'm not proud to admit that I have a degree in Logic and Computation
from Carnegie Mellon University. Majoring in logic is not the kind of
thing that makes people want to talk to you at parties, or read your
essays. But one thing I did learn after years of studying advanced
logic theory is that proficiency in argument can easily be used to
overpower others, even when you are dead wrong. If you learn a few
tricks of logic and debate, you can refute the obvious, and defend
the ridiculous. If the people you're arguing with aren't as
comfortable in the tactics of argument, or aren't as arrogant as you
are, they may even give in and agree with you.
The problem with smart people is that they like to be right and
sometimes will defend ideas to the death rather than admit they're
wrong. This is bad. Worse, if they got away with it when they were
young (say, because they were smarter than their parents, their
friends, and their parent's friends) they've probably built an ego
around being right, and will therefore defend their perfect record of
invented righteousness to the death. Smart people often fall into the
trap of preferring to be right even if it's based in delusion, or
results in them, or their loved ones, becoming miserable. (Somewhere
in your town there is a row of graves at the cemetery, called
smartypants lane, filled with people who were buried at poorly
attended funerals, whose headstones say "Well, at least I was
right.". . . . Short of obtaining a degree in logic, or studying the
nuances of debate, remember this one simple rule for defusing those
who are skilled at defending bad ideas: SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE
PROVEN WRONG, DOES NOT MAKE THEM RIGHT. Most of the tricks of logic
and debate refute questions and attacks, but fail to establish any
true justification for a given idea.
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Closely related to why smart people defend bad ideas is why people
(both smart and dumb):
1. Defend the time-honored but ineffective passive-student-lecture
mode of instruction *in conceptually difficult subjects*, see e.g.,
the recent "Physics Today" article "Transforming Physics Education"
[Wieman & Perkins (2005)], and "Re: Interactive Engagement Has Many
Forms" [Hake (2005a)].
2. Defend the placement of "Intelligent Design" in science classes
see e.g., "The Wedge Strategy" [Hake (2005b)].
3. Defend "sustainable growth" of material things (an obvious
oxymoron), see e.g. "Reflections On Sustainability, Population
Growth, And The Environment - Revisited" [Bartlett (1999)].
4. Believe weird things, see e.g., "Re: Ten Most Harmful Books of the
19th and 20th Centuries" [Hake (2005c)].
5. Rail against beneficent cross posting such as this, see, e.g.,
"Cross-Posting - Synergistic or Sinful" [Hake (2005d)].
"Difficulties of Change: . . . 9. The PRIMA FACIE AFFRONT: Whereas I
have spent a significant fraction of my professional life perfecting
my lectures and otherwise investing conscientiously in the status
quo, therefore to suggest an alternative is, by definition, to attack
me."
Halfman et al. (1977).
Hake, R.R. 2005a. "Re: Interactive Engagement Has Many Forms," online
at <http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0508&L=phys-l&P=R199>. Post
of 1 Aug 2005 11:33:54-0700 to AP-Physics, Physhare, Phys-L, and
PhysLrnR. ABSTRACT (see the article for the references): Faculty
resistance to change should not be underestimated. That it: (a) was
important at Cambridge (England) at the turn of the 20th Century was
immortalized by Cornford (1908); (b) was important at Cambridge
(Massachusetts) in the 1970's is indicated by "The rise and fall of
PSI physics at MIT" [Friedman et al. (1976)] and the Cornfordian
"Tactics for Change"
<http://web.mit.edu/jbelcher/www/TacticsForChange/>, (c) plagues
reform of U.S. physics education is indicated in Lesson #8 of the
generally ignored "Lessons from the physics education reform effort"
<http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss2/art28/> (see that article
for the references): "College And University Faculty Tend To
Overestimate The Effectiveness Of Their Own Instructional Efforts And
Thus Tend To See Little Need For Educational Reform." As examples of
this tendency see Geilker (1997) [countered by Hilborn (1998)];
Griffiths (1997) [countered by Hestenes (1998)]; Goldman (1998);
Mottman (1999a,b) [countered by Kolitch (1999), Steinberg (1999), and
Hilborn (1999)]; and Carr (2000). More recently, among faculty
upholding traditional physics teaching are Lamoreaux (2001) countered
by Stith et al. 2002, Ehrlich (2002) countered by Hake (2002b), and
Roos (2002)].
Hake, R.R. 2005c. "Re: Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th
Centuries," online at
<http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0510&L=pod&P=R12607&I=-3>.
Post of 24 Oct 2005 to AERA-C, AERA-GSL, AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-L,
American-Philosophy, Biopi-L, Chemed-L, Dewey-L, Math-Learn, Phys-L,
PhysLrnR, Physhare, Physoc, STLHE-L, POD, TeachingEdPsych, and TIPS.
ABSTRACT (see the article for the references): I reference attempts
by Michael Shermer, Sharon Begley, and Susan Clancy to answer the
question "Why do people believe in weird things," e.g., the ability
of a commercially available "electron water/air machine" to change
the hydrogen bond angle of water, "Intelligent Design," abduction by
aliens from outer space, and (most outrageously) that Dewey's
"Democracy and Education" is the 5th most harmful book of the 19th
and 20th centuries (as indicated by 15 "conservative scholars and
public policy leaders" designated as judges by the editors of the
conservative weekly "Human Events" at
<http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591>). Have there
been any substantive counters to that harmful book list? There can be
little doubt that (with the possible exception of "Mein Kampf")
blogger Harvey Jerkwater's list (headed by Julie Child's "Mastering
the Art of French Cooking") contains books far more harmful than
those listed by "Human Events."
Hake, R.R. 2005d. "Cross-Posting - Synergistic or Sinful?" online at
<http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0511&L=AERA-L&P=R114&I=-3&X=1DA73938760572A536&Y=rrhake%40earthlink.net>
or <http://tinyurl.com/8kvqg> [courtesy
<http://tinyurl.com/create.php>]. ABSTRACT: I argue that
cross-posting, although often condemned as sinful, can promote
synergistic discussion of issues, as recently indicated in
discussions of "Piaget & Dewey: Down for the Count?" Those who
dislike cross-posts can either take a few milliseconds to hit the
"delete" button, or else monitor and post to lists by subscribing in
the NOMAIL option, thus allowing them to avoid seeing the posts of
known cross-posters and other such irritating people.