People attempting to influence debates from the position of ignorance

[Kriminal99]

There is a frequent tactic used by people who are not particularly knowledgeable (typically about anything) or rational minded to try an influence debates.

 

The progression of an ignorant attention seeker

 

For instance I had a roommate that fancied himself a socialite and valued his ability to "go with the flow". When we first met he often presented naive ideas in an attempt to sound authoritative and "look cool". Being a student of philosophy, ethics and most other disciplines for that matter, it was relatively easy for me to blow these arguments out of the water with simple well worded responses.

 

Needless to say he didn't like this and took to various tactics to try and "retaliate" even though his actions were selfish. He would wait till I wasn't around then try and defeat my arguments to people we both knew. This didn't work either because people who knew me knew I was usually right and because I pointed out that this is hiding from opposing reasoning and straw man fallacy.

 

 

Proof by diversion

 

To his credit he was funny and good with metaphors so his next step was to try to use these skills to try and influence debates without knowledge. Rather than actually presenting an argument or point of view he tried to imply that he had something to say... without actually saying it.

 

This way whatever naive reasoning he might be using to support a point of view couldn't be broken down, but he was able to at least partially influence people's perceptions and thinking. If he could think of something particularly funny (but also irrelevant) to say it seemed more effective in influencing people.

 

It wasn't hard to defeat these tactics either, in person, because he was selling the idea that he suddenly went from losing every argument to having such profound wisdom that he couldn't be bothered to share. All it took was simply asking him "Do you believe you have something to say?", and then pointing out the above reasoning if he persisted.

 

Why it is important to understand fallacies and not encourage them

 

However on the internet people have no shame. I thought it was important to indicate why this behavior is wrong and selfish.

 

First, though you might say a debate is a type of competition, everyone wins when the truth is revealed and understood. People who use subversive tactics to win debates do so to everyone's detriment, because these methods can support even the most invalid of ideas. This causes chaos and ignorance, and people can not plan effectively when they retain naive reasoning because it "sounded snappy" or whatever else.

 

Secondly, it's important to recognize that people that do this type of thing are selfish by nature. When they make us laugh, we tend to think that they have done us some kind of service and perhaps they have. But in general this type of person will do or say anything to get attention, and that includes outright lying to others to try and make themselves look better at other people's expense.

 

It's important that everyone learn fallacies, why they are wrong, and do not encourage chaos by encouraging these kinds of tactics in debates or anywhere else.

[socialsamurai]

I really enjoyed reading your posting and thought it was very well presented and written. I have myself, on more than one occasion, dealt with this type of person or groups of people. However, I've had more dealings with the counter-side of this social position.

 

More than those who know nothing and pretend to know everything, I have met people who know much, and refuse to share that information. Many times I've listened to a speech, watched a demonstration, or had some other type of spectator interaction with someone who is obviously more intelligent and educated than myself. However, when I approach these people, and ask questions to further my own understanding and relative education, I am met with resistance and a very "Holier Than Thou" attitude.

 

My education and knowledge suffers for it, and as does the education and knowledge of those who I am responsible for teaching.

 

More than those who mislead others to believe that they have knowledge and skill that they do not possess, those who have knowledge and skill and refuse to share it, commit great disservice to science. It's easier to find out that someone is lying and prove them wrong, than it is to convince someone to be open and honest with the knowledge that they truly do possess.

 

-SS

[Kriminal99]

It sounds to me like those people may not be as knowledgeable as you think, or else they are just really afraid of making a mistake. Why else would they act that way?

 

I have taken theory classes and asked questions of the professor about some proof they gave or something like that after the class was over. I am far more skeptical of proofs usually than were my classmates. When I asked a question about the reasoning used in a proof based on what I know of logic, sometimes the professor became defensive and used a fallacious argument (Oh that sounds like something someone from the internet would ask... you can find anything there).

 

The funny thing was, like you I wasn't assuming that the proof was actually wrong, just that there was something about it I was missing. But when the professor reacted this way, I figured it was because he really didn't know much about the proof other than how to regurgitate it to a class, perhaps because he never really thought about any potential counter arguments or how to defeat them. It's really easy to sound like a genius to the layman with a basic familiarity of an advanced subject.

 

Even then, I assume someone down the long time line of academics who accepted the proof knew the answer to my question, but without them being there I am left to use my own best reasoning.

 

I don't think that discouraging people from using tactics to influence a debate from ignorance would discourage knowledgeable people from sharing their knowledge. The only thing I would ask of a person seemingly attempting to influence a debate from ignorance was that they EXPLICITLY state their argument instead of alluding to it through sarcasm or writing a poem or writing a cartoon column whatever else they could come up with to avoid having their argument scrutinized.

 

This is the same thing you would ask of a person who genuinely was knowledgeable about a subject and presented information. But again if the person acts as though they have something to hide when you ask them questions, my guess is they are the type trying to influence from the point of ignorance.