Nothing will work when the other side is acting in bad faith. They will just lie, use half truths, manipulate information and all kinds of tricks to get to where they want.
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. The pro-creationist reviewers of this book clearly demonstrate this to be true.
Unfortunately arguing only works if the other party is open to it.
There must be a desire on both sides to get to the truth. If one of the sides already believes he knows what is truth, then its pointless. It becomes a situation where that person’s objective is not to get to the bottom of things, but to convince you he/she is right. Unconsciously I do this sometimes with some of my beliefs, and its hard not to do it. It requires some level of maturity, not getting attached to beliefs, and rather adhere to an uncertainty principle.
Another situation is acting in bad faith. Someone who gives zero shits about truth and its only desire is to advance his position/power.
The 1st example it might still be possible to bring the other around by hard facts, sometimes. The 2nd its hopeless because there is no desire for truth.
I certainly feel this is the case if I try to argue with someone, particularly in a group with one person convinced of a falsehood and others in varying positions of certainty. And god help you if you concede any point due to lack of info or doubt, which just makes you look weak rather than thoughtful.
Nothing will work when the other side is acting in bad faith. They will just lie, use half truths, manipulate information and all kinds of tricks to get to where they want.
Unfortunately arguing only works if the other party is open to it.
There must be a desire on both sides to get to the truth. If one of the sides already believes he knows what is truth, then its pointless. It becomes a situation where that person’s objective is not to get to the bottom of things, but to convince you he/she is right. Unconsciously I do this sometimes with some of my beliefs, and its hard not to do it. It requires some level of maturity, not getting attached to beliefs, and rather adhere to an uncertainty principle.
Another situation is acting in bad faith. Someone who gives zero shits about truth and its only desire is to advance his position/power.
The 1st example it might still be possible to bring the other around by hard facts, sometimes. The 2nd its hopeless because there is no desire for truth.
When I argue in a public forum my goal is directed more to third parties than to an individual who may not be acting in good faith.
So you’re saying the other wide argues by contradicting, responding to tone, using ad hominem attacks, and name-calling? 🤓
Yes, but also that those tactics are clearly convincing for many.
And that’s not to mention the fact that arguing the facts is repeatedly shown to be ineffective in changing people’s minds.
I certainly feel this is the case if I try to argue with someone, particularly in a group with one person convinced of a falsehood and others in varying positions of certainty. And god help you if you concede any point due to lack of info or doubt, which just makes you look weak rather than thoughtful.
Don’t forget whataboutisms.