Why is it difficult to prove the obvious?

[Anakin McFly]

Sometimes I encounter claims that seem clearly false but are extremely difficult to prove - like the Earth being flat. I've been stuck debating a TERF who insists that trans women (including those post-op and on estrogen) are just as likely to sexually assault women and children as cis men. On the surface, that seems evidently wrong. But it's been extremely difficult to prove it without resorting to subjective commonsense arguments, or making assumptions that for instance sexual orientation or the amount of testosterone in one's body has anything to do with how likely one is to rape someone, given that rape is often about power, not sex.

My brother was a national debator (now in law school) and he's said that it's possible to defend anything if you're good enough at arguing, even if it's completely ridiculous and obviously false. I'm not sure what that says about truth, or the effectiveness of debate in arriving at truth.

Or perhaps this is because most of the things we deem commonsense is instead built on a series of assumptions - like the Earth being round, or science being a reliable way of measuring the world - that most of us never needed to question, and the difficulty thus stems from having to explain concepts that we have never given much thought to before, or in engaging with people who do not hold these same assumptions that we first need to prove.

In many cases, one party's own prejudices or ideology also blind them to certain things - like when someone insists that racism ended in the 1960s. But the same difficulty exists even in neutral matters, like the time one of my aunts repeatedly insisted that there had been three world wars and I had clearly forgotten my history. She was so confident about it to the point I actually started to doubt myself, and it felt like there should have been a way for me to resolve that without appealing to authority.

[Cassius Clay]

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

[Anakin McFly]

Mostly from experience, admittedly. But the growth of Flat Earthers and bizarre conspiracy theories has made me wonder how those ideas are even able to take root, because presumably other people have tried to convince them otherwise.

[Eva Yojimbo]

My brother was a national debator (now in law school) and he's said that it's possible to defend anything if you're good enough at arguing, even if it's completely ridiculous and obviously false. I'm not sure what that says about truth, or the effectiveness of debate in arriving at truth.

It says nothing about truth, but it demonstrates that debate is utterly useless in arriving at truth and may even be counter-productive. The reason being is that discovering the truth typically requires a reliable method (like science), which typically requires time, patience, discipline, and often a lot of work from many people working together towards the same goal. Debate, however, is an exercise in rhetoric, particularly rhetoric within a format (the time given to argue a side). This means that information that supports your side must be carefully selected and then sculpted into the most effective form of communication for convincing listeners and making it difficult on your opponent to rebut. These elements actually work AGAINST getting at the truth because they, by their very nature, obscure details, excise some information, and are more about psychology (how to convince people) than truth/facts.

Still, debates can be a good introduction into a subject before investigating the subject in more depth and from more reliable sources.

Or perhaps this is because most of the things we deem commonsense is instead built on a series of assumptions - like the Earth being round, or science being a reliable way of measuring the world - that most of us never needed to question, and the difficulty thus stems from having to explain concepts that we have never given much thought to before, or in engaging with people who do not hold these same assumptions that we first need to prove.

This is part of it, but I wouldn't really call it "assumptions." Due to our finite nature we simply HAVE to trust some others when it comes to certain subjects. Putting trust in science isn't really an "assumption," but rather a rational reaction to the history of science's success in figuring out how reality works. The proof that science has done this is all around us, in literally every invention we use (technically, that's the triumph of science and engineering), and even subjects like healthcare and medicine. Further, we know that science is open to being corrected when it's wrong, and that people are free to investigate its claims themselves; so it's not as if it's a secret society that can't be challenged or tested. When people reject science it's never for rational reasons or for a desire to find truth, it's always due to ulterior motives, such as valuing certain beliefs and values more than the truth; but since brains are complicated things, most individuals who do this don't consciously KNOW they're doing this. They just intuitively sense that their value is worth maintaining, and their brain secretly, silently goes about convincing itself that the value is aligned with the truth.

Stuff like flat-earthers are curious because there doesn't seem to be an obvious value they're trying to protect in rejecting science (that makes them different than YECs). However, I do think there's a mentality of certain people--Erjen is a perfect example--who are so innately distrustful of authority that they intuitively latch on to conspiracy theories and nonsense like flat-earth purely due to their desire to rebel against authorities like NASA. Remember when Erjen coined the term "gangster science?" I think that was amazingly telling of how he viewed science: not as a collection of people trying to eliminate human biases in working together with a rigorous methodology to find truth, but as a collection of people who wanted to bully the public into believing their agenda for selfish reasons. When you start with such a perverse view of what science is, then it's not surprising that you would reject whatever it is they have to say and seek out "alternative facts/theories."

She was so confident about it to the point I actually started to doubt myself, and it felt like there should have been a way for me to resolve that without appealing to authority.

Often there isn't a way to resolve such disputes without appealing to authorities; the trick is just making sure the authorities are actual authorities. Just to reiterate what I said above, humans are finite and relying on authorities is an absolute necessity, and it's really not THAT hard to put your trust in the right authorities if what you really value is truth.

[Anakin McFly]

Thanks.

These elements actually work AGAINST getting at the truth because they, by their very nature, obscure details, excise some information, and are more about psychology (how to convince people) than truth/facts.

Good point about debating being about persuasion rather than truth. But when it comes to regular arguing (online or otherwise), on my part I try as much as I can to stick to the facts and not twist data to support my point, because ultimately I'm interested in finding out the truth; and if I'm wrong, then I'd also want to know that.

not as a collection of people trying to eliminate human biases in working together with a rigorous methodology to find truth, but as a collection of people who wanted to bully the public into believing their agenda for selfish reasons.

Yeah, that's something I've encountered a lot, where some people dismiss scientific sources out of hand purely because they claim that science has been overtaken by the liberal agenda and cannot be trusted. At the same time, scientists themselves are also human, and while they would ideally be objective, their own bias may also seep into their work and affect how they interpret data, or how they obtain that data in the first place - which then compromises its integrity.

[Eva Yojimbo]

These elements actually work AGAINST getting at the truth because they, by their very nature, obscure details, excise some information, and are more about psychology (how to convince people) than truth/facts.

But when it comes to regular arguing (online or otherwise), on my part I try as much as I can to stick to the facts and not twist data to support my point, because ultimately I'm interested in finding out the truth; and if I'm wrong, then I'd also want to know that.

We're definitely the same in that regard, but sadly I think we're in the minority.

not as a collection of people trying to eliminate human biases in working together with a rigorous methodology to find truth, but as a collection of people who wanted to bully the public into believing their agenda for selfish reasons.

Yeah, that's something I've encountered a lot, where some people dismiss scientific sources out of hand purely because they claim that science has been overtaken by the liberal agenda and cannot be trusted. At the same time, scientists themselves are also human, and while they would ideally be objective, their own bias may also seep into their work and affect how they interpret data, or how they obtain that data in the first place - which then compromises its integrity.

There's no doubting that scientists are fallible, but that's one of the things that peer-review is designed to address: to make sure that it's not just any individual scientist or even a small group interpreting the data they present with their subjectivity and biases, that what they're presenting is being critiqued by other experts who aren't so attached to the study and are trying to pick out flaws and alternative explanations. It may be a group truth-finding effort, but it's not a collective hive-mind (but good luck convincing those that believe it is).

For those who are mistrustful of science, I think the way their minds work is basically like this: they've already decided what is true, and not only do they believe it is true, but they value it as a truth (more than valuing the truth itself, which is a subtle but important distinction). So when science presents an alternative to that, they immediately believe the alternative is false regardless of the evidence (who needs evidence when you already know the truth?). Because science has been so pragmatically successful in the past, and because of this it's able to present itself as an authority, the mind has to find a way to dismiss or discredit this, and the easiest way to do that is to believe that science itself is valuing things other than truth (the "liberal agenda") and are pushing that under the guise of science. Just like the initial belief required no substantial evidence to believe, this conspiracy theory requires no evidence to believe either, and is an extremely economic way for the mind to protect its valued beliefs. Plus, because it's basically a self-perpetuating loop, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to break someone out of it.

[Anakin McFly]

I think science can be influenced by a political agenda in the sense of determining which studies get funded over others, and which results are publicised and which kept relatively private. It's been the case for at least a few things in the past, for instance the widespread myth that fatty foods contribute more to weight gain than sugar does, when sugar is in fact the primary culprit. So I can understand having some degree of scepticism, and it's probably healthy, but the question is where to draw the line; especially since academia does have a liberal bias, where more educated people (like scientists) tend to be more liberal, and this too might subconsciously influence their work.

[Eva Yojimbo]

^ Oh, sure, I'm not denying that science is definitely influenced by politics in any number of ways, but the idea that all of science is a collection of "gangsters" who are united in a common goal to push an agenda that they all agree on and are disregarding the truth to do it is patently absurd. Science and scientists are fallible, yes, and a degree of skepticism is healthy with just about anything, but there's a big difference in critiquing science with an objective towards making sure the truth is found--like with peer-review--and trying to rationalize a way to dismiss science because you think you already know the answer.

As for Academia having a liberal bias, I'm guessing this largely has to do with one of the fundamental differences we know about conservative VS liberal brains: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inter ... ervatives/ where liberals tend to have a more active anterior cingulate cortex and conservatives are more likely to have an enlarged amygdala. You can read the article for the full explanation of the differences, but the basic idea is that the ACC is responsible for processing complex information while regulating emotional interference. Academia is undeniably a place that values the ability to process data well while limiting emotional distortion, so it's really not surprising that Academia and science would have a "liberal bias" because their dominant brain type is the type that would thrive in both environments. The article even mentions this specifically in regards to science:

"Past studies, as well as the ones mentioned here, have shown that liberals are more likely to respond to “informational complexity, ambiguity, and novelty". Considering the role of the ACC in conflict monitoring, error detection, and pattern recognition/ evaluation, this would make perfect sense. Liberals, according to this model, would be likely to engage in more flexible thinking, working through alternate possibilities before committing to a choice. Even after committing, if alternate contradicting data comes along, they would be more likely to consider it. Sound familiar? This is how science works, and why there might be so many correlations between scientific beliefs (and lesser belief in religion) and tendency to be liberal."

[Anakin McFly]

That's interesting, thanks!

I'd be curious to know if the same holds true across generations, though, because I seem to encounter the inverse pattern when it comes to the younger generation - such as liberal teenagers often just parroting liberal views when their responses to arguments shows they don't actually understand their own position, let alone are able to defend it when faced with the slightest criticism. In those cases it comes across that they didn't arrive at their views through their own critical thinking, but were just going along with what they were taught and what their friends all believe. e.g. someone might accuse them of being hypocritical if they believe it's ok for a man to have sex with a man he loves, but not for a man to have sex with a child he loves. Instead of pointing out how there's nothing mutual about the latter case and it would be rape, and how if the first case wasn't mutually consenting it would also be wrong, the more common response is to call them hateful and why can't people just be nice to each other and accept everybody and why must they be so judgmental etc; it's not a counterargument in any form, is entirely based in emotion rather than rationality, and while I support people verbally thrashing homophobes like those, I wish they could do so in addition to addressing those points at least a little.

I recently got in touch with a local LGBT group where most of them are about ten years my junior, and I'm disturbed by how often I see this stuff - someone somewhere posts a fairly minor homophobic or transphobic argument and they completely fall apart into existential crisis because they genuinely have no idea how to respond or argue. Which is one worry I have about the safe space movement; while I definitely appreciate the need for minorities to have a place where they aren't harassed and can feel safe, it seems to be coming at the price of them losing the ability to defend themselves outside of those spaces, or even to have a proper awareness of how the world works outside of it. I had a friend in Canada who came out to his mother in a really casual way and then was utterly baffled when she threw a fit, because he honestly didn't understand why anyone would react that way when no one he knew thought it was a big deal at all. I don't know how anyone could be that thoroughly oblivious; being upset at parental rejection is one thing, but being confused doesn't compute with me.

I don't know how much of that has contributed to that alt-right mindset of how liberals are all "feels not reals", or how they're now positioning themselves as the logical, rational ones supported with all their twisted interpretations of science, 'racial realism' and whatnot, portraying the left as a bunch of fragile emotional snowflakes in denial of reality. It's interesting to note that shift in light of the study you linked, because a liberal neurology may not actually be that strongly linked to a liberal political stance these days.

Personally, I love both stability and science. I hate change and have easily-triggered anxiety, but I also hate inaccuracies and falsehoods and injustice.

[Eva Yojimbo]

Yeah, I certainly don't think those studies tell the whole story of the liberal/conservative split, but I think it's one part of the puzzle. What you allude to, namely people who just adopt the positions of friends/family or perhaps whatever celebrities they look up probably wouldn't have the same kind of neurological makeup as those that adopted their positions based on how they really felt about them. I'm sure there's plenty of the political sheep you describe out there as well. Of course, it's also possible that many of those types have thought about the issues, arrived at those conclusions, but are just ignorant of the various objections, counter-arguments, and information out there, which makes their arguments seem shallow and not well thought out. I also think what you're describing, the "feels not reals" liberals may be legitimate phenomena itself. I think because liberals do tend to support minorities (eg) there are many from those groups that naturally gravitate to the liberal side because of that even if they haven't seriously considered all of the issues and information themselves, and I suspect that could account for many of the bad arguments (or lack of arguments) you see from some members on that side.

Really, the only counter to this is to keep learning and to practice debate. Even though I reject the notion of debate as a truth-finding exercise in itself, one great benefit of debate for the individuals involved is that it helps point out the holes in their knowledge and logic. It was reading and being involved in debates myself that spurred me to study many of the subjects I have, especially as it related to science and the atheism/theism debate. When I went through my own crisis of faith in my early teens I probably spent a good 5+ years involved in learning as much as I could about subjects related to it because I really wanted to get at the truth, and it's also what spurred my interest in rationality because I also wanted to make sure that I was reasoning from the information correctly. Of course, most people don't have that kind of time or level of interest (call it an obsession, I guess), but it became immensely valuable in my ability to learn and reason about other subjects since then.

Finally, I imagine most people are more complicated than the simple "loves stability/hates change" VS "loves change/hates stability" split. I think we all have areas and subjects where we do prefer stability and others where we prefer or can tolerate change. I think the bigger issue more than stability/change itself is how we process new information, whether we think such information requires a change to make things fair/right, or whether we deeply fear the consequences of that change. I remember in my review of 2001: A Space Odyssey I said that that film better than any other captured the difference between people who feared the unknown Vs those that were willing to embrace and try to understand it; I didn't know at the time I might've been describing this very phenomena!

[Monk]

Sometimes I encounter claims that seem clearly false but are extremely difficult to prove - like the Earth being flat. I've been stuck debating a TERF who insists that trans women (including those post-op and on estrogen) are just as likely to sexually assault women and children as cis men. On the surface, that seems evidently wrong. But it's been extremely difficult to prove it without resorting to subjective commonsense arguments, or making assumptions that for instance sexual orientation or the amount of testosterone in one's body has anything to do with how likely one is to rape someone, given that rape is often about power, not sex.

This is a situation where it seems more apt to ask the person making the argument for evidence (there's none, as far as I'm aware). Chances are, his arguments for a going to be based on "common sense"