Re: [Phys-l] Responding to a DJ about science

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 07/26/2010 07:53 PM, Robert Yeend wrote:
> As a sage once said, "The trouble with wrestling with pigs is that 
> both of you get dirty, but only the pig enjoys it."

That's a clever saying, but it misses the point.

On 07/26/2010 07:58 PM, Hodges, Laurent [PHYSA] wrote:
> > It will probably be hopeless to argue with such a nut. 

It is or it isn't, depending on what you are hoping for.

Remember the first rule of debating:  Your goal is not to
convince the opposing debater;  your goal is to persuade
the audience.  The same rule applies in the courtroom:  The
opposing lawyers are never going to concede.  Your goal is
not to convince them;  your goal is to persuade the judge.

The DJ seems to understand this.  He is not addressing you but
is directly addressing the audience when he tells them to
"ignore the fool."

> > Turning
> > around some of his comments, you might ask, "Do you believe in
> > Heaven or Hell even though you haven't been there?"  "Do you
> > believe in God even though you haven't seen him?"  "Scientists say
> > if you walk off the roof of a tall building you will fall to the
> > ground and probably be killed or maimed for life - do you consider
> > that nonsense?" etc.

Turning the DJ's words against him is a reasonable tactic.

It is however probably better to avoid asking rhetorical
questions of the DJ, and indeed to avoid addressing the DJ
at all.  Speak to the audience.

Remember, the goal is to help the audience see that the DJ
is being illogical, inconsistent, and hypocritical.  You will
probably never get the DJ to see this.  Actually his position
has a certain perverse consistency:  he has evidently decided
that logic doesn't matter, so the fact that his arguments are
illogical doesn't bother him, and you will never be able to
convince him using logic.

Returning to the theme of turning his words against him:  Note
that he who calls his brother a fool is in danger of hell fire.
(Matthew 5:22.)

I would emphasize that the DJ's arguments
 a) are angry and needlessly personal;
 b) are illogical and hypocritical; and
 c) make immodest claims on the basis of no evidence.

In contrast,
 a) scientists are trained to weigh the evidence rather
  than attacking the persons who present the evidence.
 b) Scientific arguments are judged according to how well
  the data and the theories fit together, not on who argues
  the longest, the loudest, or the most violently.
 c) Perhaps most importantly, scientists are systematically
  modest about what they claim to know:  In many cases they
  (we) say "the evidence indicates this-or-that" rather than
  claiming that we absolutely "know" this-or-that.

  On the other hand, there are some things we absolutely
  know.  For example, I don't know everything about the
  moon, and I don't know everything about green cheese,
  but I know for sure that the moon is not made of green
  cheese.

Most of all I would tell the audience that the DJ has no
clue about what science is or what scientists do.  I would
beseech the audience not to take his word for it -- or take
my word for it -- but rather to find out for themselves,
perhaps by getting to know a scientist.  This is the essence
of science, and indeed the essence of Western culture since
the Renaissance, namely people thinking for themselves rather
than accepting the authority of someone who has no idea what
he is talking about.