There are a number of forum guidelines for posting behavior. Basically they deal with being honest: honest in who you are, honest is what you say is your content, and honest in your portrayal of what people being quoted are actually saying (whether forum members or other people).
8. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.
The best way to pursue this that I can see is to try to understand what is being quoted before making the quote.
What I proposed at the time, was that Kaichos_Man was not reading to understand the evolution position, but to be able to refute it, poke holes in, find inconsistencies, etc. His lack of understanding led him to see what he considered big problems with evolution in the material he was quoting.
From my personal observations on this and other forums, he is not alone in this type of behavior, and it is fairly common in creationist posts to see vast misrepresentations of evolution presented as common knowledge, but I have also seen this behavior in non-creationists. The issue crops up whenever someone says "you've misunderstood\misquoted\misrepresented what I said" -- and this should be a big red flag to anyone who considers themselves an honest poster.
So do you read for understanding (as best you can)? Or do you read to find and pick out points to base a refutation on?
I think it is easy to get caught up in this last behavior in the heat of a debate, but this doesn't excuse not back-checking when the red flag is raised.
We, as evolutionists, are constantly fighting strawmen on this forum. It seems, in fact, that creationists are not even making any effort to understand at all. ... Some questions to ask:
Does belief always come before understanding? Should it? How large is the role of confirmation bias in our learning process? ...
I'm starting a new thread because (a) I did not want to tie up someone else's thread with my argument/s, (b) I wanted to expand on reasons for lack of understanding rather than focus on the rest of Bluejay's questions, and (c) because I didn't want to focus on evo vs creo, but on general human behavior.
Let me answer these questions here to start the ball rolling on this thread:
Does belief always come before understanding?
Yes. Evidence shows that the human mind makes a decision to believe or disbelieve a new concept, and then looks for reasons to justify that decision. (Sorry, I had a reference for this but I've lost it - anyone who can point to it, please do. I believe is was a psychology paper).
This ties in to my argument regarding worldview/s: that any concept that fits with the worldview is easily accepted, and any concept that is contrary to, or contradicts, the worldview is not accepted.
Concept fits: dig up worldview evidence for why it fits. Concept doesn't fit: dig up worldview evidence for why it doesn't fit.
Should it?
No, but the fact is that it does, so we should learn to accept this and try to recognize when it occurs to avoid making decisions to believe or disbelieve that are not supported by empirical evidence, and are more likely the result of opinion and personal bias/es.
How large is the role of confirmation bias in our learning process?
Huge, as almost everyone on that thread acknowledges. However the companion behavior, cognitive dissonance, is also a major player, imho, where people (or their subconscious minds) actually fight against new information because it is contrary to, or contradicts, a worldview.
See CosmicChimp (not to pick on anyone, just a good example because he recognized what was going on) in Peanut Gallery, Message 191:
I sort of 'nod-off' often while reading YEC explanations so I know exactly what you are describing above.
In other words, by the time you reach the end of the argument, your mind has already rejected the beginning, and you are left with a vague "what did they say?" feeling. Even going back and rereading the section doesn't necessarily result in any increased understanding, the concept is too foreign to the worldview.
Personally, I believe this is most applicable when one has an "ide fixe that is being contested, even when one is not aware themselves of the fixation.
So when this happens with a poster, do you ask for more explanation, or do you blunder on, using your rapier wit to dispose of your perceived goblins, confident in the belief that if you don't understand it, that it must be wrong?
Honest Debate: how do you read? So do you read for understanding (as best you can)? Or do you read to find and pick out points to base a refutation on?
Failure to understand the position you are supposedly replying to inevitably means that you are talking about something else, and when you build later conclusions on these false understandings, all you are doing is erecting a house of cards based on straw men, in the end accomplishing nothing.
Bottom line, you cannot understand what a person means more than the person themselves. If they are confused, all you can do is show that you are confused by their post/s and ask for clarification. If they say you have missed the point in any way, you can be sure that you have.
An example here would be Bolder-dash and his thread Has natural selection really been tested and verified? where the whole thread was tied up by his complaining that he was not understood, and his inability at the time to explain what he meant in greater detail: an exercise in frustration for both sides of that debate.
Mr Jack comes to mind as one of the few from either side who consistently points out errors made by his own side of the debate.
Yes, and I'm happy to acknowledge that he has corrected me a couple of times.
Incidentally, you and I don't often end up on the same side of debates here. I somehow manage to take exception to virtually everything you say, but appearances suggest that this might be an exception.
And yet there are frequent occurrences where I find your post sufficient so I don't need to make a reply.
When I read new material I read for understanding.
When I do research I look for bits and pieces of evidence, generally in books or articles I have already read or at least scanned. ...
I believe most people do this for things they want to learn, so reading for comprehension is part of the mix. Of course in school where reading is assigned this can be a problem for people not interested in learning (a concept I have difficulty with).
I'm thinking mostly in terms of the posts in forums like this,and whether you read them for understanding or just to pick out items that you can refute.
But if the evidence doesn't support my idea, that idea must be dropped, or at least put aside until evidence which does support it can be found.
Yes, I've had to give up some ideas I've had in the course of some of my researched replies.
Creationists are often extremely bad with confirmation bias because they need anything to reaffirm such a weak theory.
I'd rather say that uneducated people are often bad with confirmation bias, because they have been taught by ads and society to accept such things as valid and they have not been taught reasons to be skeptical.
I'd rather say that gullible people are often bad with confirmation bias, because they willingly accept such "evidence" from others.
Just look at politics and the things politicians get away with.
But this doesn't include all the cases of confirmation bias.
And the only reason they defend it tooth and nail is because it is directly linked to their religion.
This is their idee fixe and it can lead to delusion when the specific idea is contradicted by empirical objective evidence - such as the age of the earth.
And once again, I don't find this the exclusive arena of creationists or fundamentalists, etc, but to anyone with a fixed idea.
I think we will see very fundamentalist type behavior from our new member OLEGDEI, and it will be interesting to try to understand his rather extreme view/s. He gets off the sort bus (24 hr suspension for bad behavior) in 30 minutes.
That creationists are confronted with physical evidence and empirical data often only serves to confirm for them what their pastors and their apologetic websites informed them -- that it can't be trusted and don't be enticed by it.
Yes, any website that only provides a part of the tested information involved, or only selects supporting evidence, cannot be considered reliable.
But this shouldn't only point the finger at creationists in all fairness. It is human nature to hold a bias to some degree.
Agreed, except that again I would point to education and gullibility. We see a clear trend with higher education in avoiding poor thinking habits.
I tend not to read the extremely long ones at all.
Ah yes, one of my back monkeys... Sometimes it seems (to me) unavoidable. However, I also see no reason to cater to a short attention span, and would rather have a well thought out reply covering a post than a series of "pot-shots" and only some of the points without any relation between them.
If someone is taking one specific point and replying to that while ignoring how it fits into the overall argument, then it seems to me that they are not reading to understand, but are picking out "gotcha" points to reply to.
I might pick a single point, or maybe two, to discuss, but that's about all.
If the context of the single point within the whole argument is maintained, and the rest of the argument is inconsequential, then this can be done to enhance understanding - say you have one sticking point in the other argument and want it clarified.
I thought I'd just mention incidents i've encountered in a recent thread to highlight a couple points not covered in the list ...
Curiously, I think you are missing the point of the thread.
The purpose of this thread is not to list bad behavior, per se, but to learn how to avoid bad behavior, especially dishonest behavior. I'm more interested in how you see your behavior, than the behavior of others.
The "list" you seem to be refering to is the glossary of terms.
Ad Hominem attacks ...
Are just a logical fallacy, usually the last resort for a failed argument, or where cognitive dissonance is cutting too close to the bone.
Claiming to have linkable specific evidence ...
As in my opening post here? This occurs frequently, and is only necessary to track down if it is essential to the argument.
So when you read the posts of people, do you try to understand the POV of the argument?
Or do you try to break it down into debate points?
Hi jasonlang, hope your train trip stays on the tracks.
Hmmm well, looking at my own record, is ridiculing a personalized attack itself an unjustifiable personalized attack ?
It certainly is not going to lead to better understanding, imh(ysa)o.
Would you see the specific forms of the fallacies, as symptoms,
I would see them as indicative of poor education in logic, which is common. This may lead to the further symptoms of confirmation bias etc, by the inability to recognize the statements as fallacies.
Working with the key points in an overall argument is fine, but far too many of these posts attempt to respond to all arguments, consequential or not. Often at some length. The responses to those posts can be even worse.
This is not the best format for such a debate style.
Point made. The problem is with off-topic branching, and how to deal with that. Some people don't take failure to respond or a comment that it is off-topic as an answer and will continue to hound for one. It also has something to do with completeness.
Hard feeling? no, just trying to maintain focus on the topic, and taking a little hint from Coyote.
It wasn't meant as a refutation.
I didn't think it was, just that it was an example of behavior, rather than a discussion about whether it is valid behavior for forum debates. Kind of a cross purposes to the topic.
It seems most people are missing the mark here. The topic is about how to best address other people when making a reply:
Do you try to fully understand their position and then see if it needs tweaking?
Or do you whiz through it looking for obvious errors and then harp on those while ignoring the rest of the post?
(obviously these are extremes in a spectrum of possibilities)
I'm trying to contrast different approaches we see to find ways to improve my posting habits, and perhaps influence others.
Take Modulus as an example - rarely gets emotional or behaves as an attack dog, but tries to reason with people to come to some common understanding (one of the reasons he is one of the best posters here).
I think if one want's to honestly talk about someone else's position they have to understand it first.
Now, rather obviously, nobody is going to come out and say that they think their manner of posting is dishonest or inappropriate, however some may see ways they can improve.
I read mostly in order to refute. ... ... and refuting arguments against evolution (...) helps me clarify the evidence in my own mind.
I'm not sure how that works, can you give me an example?
I usually start with trying to understand, but in a lengthy debate with an obdurate poster (example: Archangel in EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:), I can switch to reading to refute, taking points that are false and showing the evidence that falsifies the points made. Admin tried to focus on just one item in the list, and several (Granny Magda the most) tried to get Archangel to expand on his position, but it ended with impasse.
Re: on reading to refute - does this lead to confirmation bias?
Hi Peepul,
I learned something about whale evolution. But also I made a connection in my own brain between two lines of evidence that supported each other in a way I hadn't previously seen. ... But with whales, the morphology of whales is radically different from that of the common ancestor. We should NOT therefore expect the a creator would give them similar genetics to ungulates. But this is what we actually find. The fossil record and the genetics line up in this unexpected way.
Excellent point, but I'm still not sure how "reading to refute" is what is necessary to get you here (although I'm sure Phil Gingerich would be pleased).
So for me, this was an 'Aha' moment - this is really good evidence in favour of ToE and against creation and helped increase my emotional belief in ToE.
In other words, you found confirmation evidence and it made you feel comfortable with the results?
This is what worries me about focusing on the refutation rather than the understanding, that you can fall prey to confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance and, perhaps, miss some nuanced point that you may not have agreed with originally.
Re: on reading to refute - does this lead to confirmation bias?
Hi again Peepul,
I'm suffering severe cognitive dissonance all the time and I'm trying to reduce it! I'm hoping that with increased knowledge and a confidence that the evidence is very good, I become more open to genuine challenges. So far, that does appear to be the case, but I do agree that there is a risk of overlooking something valid and important in an opponents argument with this approach.
This is also a valid approach - to seek out your sources of cognitive dissonance and see what the evidence shows to be valid resolution of the conflict/s.
™ Version 4.2