SteveCuno.com

Darned facts

A business associate once criticized me for being “too interested in facts.” She said, “Lots of things in life that are true aren’t supported by evidence.” I asked for an example. She promised to get back to me. Ten years later, I’m still waiting.

After marveling, justly so, at the workings of the human body, Nelson floated this scientifically and logically illiterate embarrassment: “Some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere. Ask yourself, ‘Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?’ The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!”

Nelson was repeating popular misinformation that it’s possible he buys himself. If so, shame on him for not checking his facts before misleading millions of unquestioning followers. But if he was intentionally misrepresenting science, then he was counting on his audience not to know better, and shame on him all the more.

In debate, integrity demands representing the opposing view with fairness and accuracy. Fair being fair, since I frequently set the record straight when Mormon claims are misrepresented, permit me to set the record straight in the wake of Nelson’s misrepresentation of science:

• Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with the creation of life. It has to do with the origin of time as we know it, based on conclusions drawn from the well-established fact that the universe is expanding.

• “Happened by chance” undermines the very essence of Natural Selection.

• The dictionary reference relies upon a number of logical fallacies, including Argument From Analogy, Argument From Personal Incredulity, Begging the Question, and Straw Man.

I begin to better understand why so many religious people distrust science. If what Nelson foisted upon the faithful last Sunday were a fair representation, I’d distrust science, too.

When evidence demands,
truly open minds change

The topic threatened the peace of our lunch, so I dropped it. She said, “Yeah, you’re not going to convince me, either.”

“Actually,” I said, “I’m willing to be convinced. Solid evidence will win me over. That’s what being open-minded is all about.”

I meant it. Evidence routinely changes my mind. I now accept that second-hand smoke is a health threat; while earlier evidence for it appeared weak, newer evidence appears strong. I no longer accept that genetics make women better at, say, communication and empathy, and men better at, say, math and science; it turns out that so-called “evidence” for innate, sex-linked abilities doesn’t hold up. I now accept the likelihood of anthropogenic global warming; not because new evidence emerged, but because my understanding of the subject grew as I researched. And I no longer use my cell phone while driving; I have had to accept, not altogether willingly, evidence that phone use while driving increases the likelihood of an accident. Even hands-free phone use.

The day I stop changing my mind will be the day that I stop learning, or that I decide that sticking to my guns matters more than being illuminated. That would be a sad day indeed.

How to Avoid Dealing with Facts and Logic

One evening at dinner, Dad told my stepsister that scientists had succeeded in creating life, from scratch, in a test-tube. Even at age 15, I knew better. More important, I knew not to say, “Nuh-uh.” Suffice it to say that it had something to do with Dad’s typical, not-too-benign reactions to being contradicted by one of his kids.

Not just authority figures have been known to choose being unenlightened over being corrected. It is human nature to value being deemed right over knowing what is right. It is not unusual for people to disqualify contradictory evidence, often angrily, even though the rational course would be to accept it gratefully and benefit from it.

Not long ago, one could deal with an embarrassing contradiction by resorting to fisticuffs or a duel. Today we have more socially acceptable ways of disqualifying inconvenient facts, and of metaphorically shooting the messenger. I refer to the time-honored tradition of The Dodge.

If you prefer to undo the bearer of logic and fact to considering the possibility that you might not have your facts straight, here are some dodges you may find useful:

The Pout or Rage Maneuver — Throw enough of a fit and, facts and logic be damned, there’s a good chance the other party will apologize solely to reestablish peace.

The Presentation Critique — Avoid the issue at hand by focusing not on what was said, but on how it was said. Try saying, for instance, “You sounded like you think you’re so superior.”

The “What’s Wrong With You?” Diversion — Accuse the other party of being motivated by bitterness, anger, hate, having an ax to grind, or being on the attack. Your friend is likely to become sidetracked debunking the accusation. Good work. Now the argument is no longer about the facts, but about your friend’s character.

The Personal Umbrage Appeal — Take offense. If you can make the other party feel responsible for your having chosen to be offended, he or she may spend the rest of the conversation trying assuage your feelings instead of sticking to the original assertion.

The “How Dare You” Diversion — A variation on the Personal Umbrage Appeal. Deem the topic off-limits and express righteous indignation at its having been subjected to scrutiny. Examples include “This tramples the sacred,” “Don’t you dare say anything bad about my hero,” “I can’t believe you brought up that,” and the ever-useful and meaningless, “You’ve gone too far.”

The Secular Counteraccusation — Bring up an occasion when the other party’s facts were wrong. For instance, “What about the time you thought there was a monster in the closet? Huh?” Or, “You’re correcting me? You, who cheated on math tests in middle school?” This abandons the original question for an assertion that your friend isn’t blameless, even if no such claim was on the table.

The Pious Counteraccusation — A great way to misapply an otherwise decent biblical principle: dismiss the evidence and accuse your friend of judging you.

The Moving Target Part I — If your rationale is debunked, invent a new one. Say you’re bent on the idea that dogs see ghosts because they see can light that humans can’t see. Should someone point out that in fact we see light that dogs can’t see, switch to claiming that dogs see ghosts because their ears act as antennae. Failing that, switch to claiming that dogs “see” ghosts by sensing them. Failing that, point out that no one can prove that dogs can’t see ghosts. The longer you keep going, the more fun you’ll have.

The Moving Target Part II — Should you find yourself cornered, make an Orwellian change to your claim: revise it and deny the revision. For instance: “I never said that all Martians are intellectually inferior” — even though that’s exactly what you said and meant — “I said that, per capita, fewer Martians have college degrees.”

Finally, if all else fails, you can resort to...

The “You’re a Bad Person” Dismissal — Proclaiming the other party “evil,” “negative” or a “bad influence,” cut off contact. You’ll never again be in danger of having to face reason. At least at the hands of that person.

These are just a few ways you can avoid personal growth by having to weigh your own opinions and perceptions against cold, hard facts. With a little imagination, doubtless you will come up with many more on your own.

Two notes for devotees of rational thought: 

1. All of the above work both ways. The would-be bearer of facts and logic can be and often is wrong. Facing that possibility can prove as troublesome — not to mention embarrassing and infuriating — for so-called rational thinkers as for anyone else. Everyone, skeptics included, must continually work not to fall prey to the wiles of one’s ego.

2. Know when to give it a rest. Not every misconception must be corrected here and now. This is one I am still learning. Sometimes I must remind myself that the world may survive a few more days even if, for instance, everyone leaves the dinner party believing that red cars get an undue share of speeding tickets.

Bad dog, Toto

Too often there is no responsibility for making a bogus claim; only condemnation for discovering and reporting that it is bogus.

Care and Feeding of Homunculi

The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) exposes harmful frauds. It is an honor to write for them. My newest article, “The Care and Feeding of Homunculi,” is a reminder that critical thinking goes hand-in-hand with remaining open to correction. You can read the article by clicking here now.