Persuading Others to Use Reason
Often it can be frustrating to engage people with a
fundamentalist and anti-rational perspective. In a
discussion on anything regarding their ideological beliefs,
they shield their assertions from analysis, discount
evidence out of hand. Often they feel that mere
insistence is support enough for absurdities while no
amount of evidence and reasoning will convince them of
an opinion that contradicts their beliefs.
Yet if we do not stand up and openly challenge
anti-rational thinking, its biased perspectives will have a
great drain on society. Below are provided some positive
methods for engaging people who are anti-rational,
methods that encourage them to take up a reasonable
perspective, to think critically, and to develop a taste for
evidence as the basis for opinions.
Often it can be frustrating to engage people with a
fundamentalist and anti-rational perspective. In a
discussion on anything regarding their ideological beliefs,
they shield their assertions from analysis, discount
evidence out of hand. Often they feel that mere
insistence is support enough for absurdities while no
amount of evidence and reasoning will convince them of
an opinion that contradicts their beliefs.
Yet if we do not stand up and openly challenge
anti-rational thinking, its biased perspectives will have a
great drain on society. Below are provided some positive
methods for engaging people who are anti-rational,
methods that encourage them to take up a reasonable
perspective, to think critically, and to develop a taste for
evidence as the basis for opinions.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Beacon at the Edge (Bate)
assumptions. These arguments start with structures
assumptions. These arguments start with structures
like, “So have you stopped beating your children yet?
Yes, or no.” Instead of dismissing the question as
absurd and walking away or falling into the question,
Bate is steadfastly engaging from a rational position by
analyzing the questions inherent bias and asks the
person to critically examine that bias and to step outside
the problematic or metaphysical perspective that such
language and structure creates in our minds. Of course,
language and structure creates in our minds. Of course,
we must all be careful with our own questions and
assumptions, working to move towards clearer
understanding all the time. See also “The Excluded
Middle” logical fallacy.
Middle” logical fallacy.
Problem Example: “Are all things Determined or do we
have Free Will?”
Response Example: It is generally absurd to choose
as stated. Of course one must define these terms
reasonably precisely in a particular situation, because
the definitions that are used in old metaphysical
questions like this are often changed significantly. The
myth-based structure of this dilemma comes from “How
can a god who is all powerful hold anyone accountable
enough to punish them and maintain its own moral
credibility?” The first assumption inherent in this
structure of argument (including mechanical
determinism) is that if one can find external causes as
the motivation to human action, then the individual is not
to be held “responsible.” The second assumption is that
some metaphysical non-causal force must exist if we are
to make “free” decisions of any significance. Both of
these are absurd when one looks at ordinary process of
social accountability, where cause and effect are integral
to decisions and responsibility. Even with great variance
in the definitions, to frame an analysis of decision-
making using this misleading structure is to default to
groundless metaphysical speculation that requires
ignoring sound social processes like common law.
Demand Evidence
Description: Many metaphysical and irrational
arguments swirl in the abstract and speculative for most
of what they say. If they only did this, then we would call
it fanciful fiction. But generally they get to a proposition
about reality or a demand that one act a certain way.
Once this set of tangible assertions is made, one needs
to focus on those, disregard the metaphysics, and look
for the evidence that would support or contradict
agreement with the assertions. Making decisions on
assertions without basing them on any real evidence
would be derelict. Whether a question has metaphysics
associated with it or not then becomes irrelevant.
Pointing out that humans do not or cannot know certain
things does not mean that it is called for to plug in any
handy metaphysical speculation. That only circumvents
inquiry that could lead to knowledge. If we are thinking
clearly, we should admit this with reserve and avoid
deluding ourselves by treating groundless speculation in
areas of ignorance as knowledge. Asking people who
pose metaphysical questions to demand evidence every
time, and to judge thereby, can help release them from a
habitual reliance on groundless speculation and rumors.
Problem Example: Briefly: “A magical intelligence
guides the evolution of species and perhaps other
things. We can see this because evolutionary evidence
is incomplete in terms of explaining complexity and
continuously tracking fossils.”
Response Example: (Clearly state the tangible
assertion.) You’re asking us to weigh the theory of
evolution as equal to myth-based speculation by
misrepresenting characteristics that are the very
demonstrations of the theory of evolution’s credibility.
Then you demand that we present your perspective to
the education system on equal footing with evolution.
(Then analyze assertion based on evidence.) Let’s be
honest. You’re defending a “where we came from” myth
in the face of the evidence-based theories of biology,
geology, and physics. The alternative you offer is
treating well known gaps in knowledge as though they
were the discovery of new concrete knowledge, and
assuming that your particular myth fills that gap. This
“Gap Filling” actually stops the process of discovery,
because it stops the motivation for inquiry that is the fuel
of science. What you propose would stagnate our
understanding of the universe and cause apathy in the
population in regard to the very science that we need to
meet the challenges of public health, environmental
sustainability, and large-scale government. Not to
belabor each point here, but clarifying the processes
that lead to complexity is a gradual process itself, gaps
in fossil records must exist according to our
understanding of geology, and the alternative functions
of the genetic components of complex organs is still
being explored. You are really asking to hold in our
mind that these things are resolved by inserting myth, to
stop doing rigorous, productive, and meaningful
science. Let’s instead work together to keep expanding
the knowledge of humanity instead of letting the
arrogant and simplistic views of our myths dissuade us
from that quest.
assumptions. These arguments start with structures
assumptions. These arguments start with structures
like, “So have you stopped beating your children yet?
Yes, or no.” Instead of dismissing the question as
absurd and walking away or falling into the question,
Bate is steadfastly engaging from a rational position by
analyzing the questions inherent bias and asks the
person to critically examine that bias and to step outside
the problematic or metaphysical perspective that such
language and structure creates in our minds. Of course,
language and structure creates in our minds. Of course,
we must all be careful with our own questions and
assumptions, working to move towards clearer
understanding all the time. See also “The Excluded
Middle” logical fallacy.
Middle” logical fallacy.
Problem Example: “Are all things Determined or do we
have Free Will?”
Response Example: It is generally absurd to choose
as stated. Of course one must define these terms
reasonably precisely in a particular situation, because
the definitions that are used in old metaphysical
questions like this are often changed significantly. The
myth-based structure of this dilemma comes from “How
can a god who is all powerful hold anyone accountable
enough to punish them and maintain its own moral
credibility?” The first assumption inherent in this
structure of argument (including mechanical
determinism) is that if one can find external causes as
the motivation to human action, then the individual is not
to be held “responsible.” The second assumption is that
some metaphysical non-causal force must exist if we are
to make “free” decisions of any significance. Both of
these are absurd when one looks at ordinary process of
social accountability, where cause and effect are integral
to decisions and responsibility. Even with great variance
in the definitions, to frame an analysis of decision-
making using this misleading structure is to default to
groundless metaphysical speculation that requires
ignoring sound social processes like common law.
Demand Evidence
Description: Many metaphysical and irrational
arguments swirl in the abstract and speculative for most
of what they say. If they only did this, then we would call
it fanciful fiction. But generally they get to a proposition
about reality or a demand that one act a certain way.
Once this set of tangible assertions is made, one needs
to focus on those, disregard the metaphysics, and look
for the evidence that would support or contradict
agreement with the assertions. Making decisions on
assertions without basing them on any real evidence
would be derelict. Whether a question has metaphysics
associated with it or not then becomes irrelevant.
Pointing out that humans do not or cannot know certain
things does not mean that it is called for to plug in any
handy metaphysical speculation. That only circumvents
inquiry that could lead to knowledge. If we are thinking
clearly, we should admit this with reserve and avoid
deluding ourselves by treating groundless speculation in
areas of ignorance as knowledge. Asking people who
pose metaphysical questions to demand evidence every
time, and to judge thereby, can help release them from a
habitual reliance on groundless speculation and rumors.
Problem Example: Briefly: “A magical intelligence
guides the evolution of species and perhaps other
things. We can see this because evolutionary evidence
is incomplete in terms of explaining complexity and
continuously tracking fossils.”
Response Example: (Clearly state the tangible
assertion.) You’re asking us to weigh the theory of
evolution as equal to myth-based speculation by
misrepresenting characteristics that are the very
demonstrations of the theory of evolution’s credibility.
Then you demand that we present your perspective to
the education system on equal footing with evolution.
(Then analyze assertion based on evidence.) Let’s be
honest. You’re defending a “where we came from” myth
in the face of the evidence-based theories of biology,
geology, and physics. The alternative you offer is
treating well known gaps in knowledge as though they
were the discovery of new concrete knowledge, and
assuming that your particular myth fills that gap. This
“Gap Filling” actually stops the process of discovery,
because it stops the motivation for inquiry that is the fuel
of science. What you propose would stagnate our
understanding of the universe and cause apathy in the
population in regard to the very science that we need to
meet the challenges of public health, environmental
sustainability, and large-scale government. Not to
belabor each point here, but clarifying the processes
that lead to complexity is a gradual process itself, gaps
in fossil records must exist according to our
understanding of geology, and the alternative functions
of the genetic components of complex organs is still
being explored. You are really asking to hold in our
mind that these things are resolved by inserting myth, to
stop doing rigorous, productive, and meaningful
science. Let’s instead work together to keep expanding
the knowledge of humanity instead of letting the
arrogant and simplistic views of our myths dissuade us
from that quest.
Currently all entries are © Erik Moore
To submit resources to our editors, please use the contact
MOR button above or click here.
MOR button above or click here.
Page and Icons © Mission of Reason™ all rights reserved. Mission of
Reason™ is a non-profit corporation of the state of Colorado, U.S.A.
Text and images falls under the copyright of the author when indicated.
Reason™ is a non-profit corporation of the state of Colorado, U.S.A.
Text and images falls under the copyright of the author when indicated.
 |  |  |  |
