11 of the rules of the dispute on the Internet with the supporters of pseudoscience

Practice shows that most often do you meet with the followers of anti-scientific ideas is on the Internet. Why join with them in the dispute? The educational purposes.

Inveterate debater, you can not prove anything. But the people watching your discussion rather believe reasoned position. To exit the winner of the dispute, read the classic tricks "alternative service" and how to counteract them.

In discussions with the appropriate reviewer, I try to follow a few simple rules.

• Firstly, referring to the interlocutor only on "you", do not let myself rude and transitions to the individual.
• Second, I insist that your opponent based his assertions, however confident they might sound. Especially if these statements begin with words like: "As you know ..." (who knows?), "Genetics have proved ..." (Well, provide a link to scientific publications) or "Darwin himself wrote that ..." (again, waiting for the link and correct quote). Often in the course of the dispute turns out that the opponent did not read the sources relied upon.
  instagram viewer
• Third, to seek answers to the questions asked, and again and again come back to him, if the opponent is trying to divert the conversation away.

These were the general recommendations. I move on to the specifics. Now I want to consider some typical polemical tricks that use the supporters of pseudoscience, and to suggest possible ways to counter. Some of the techniques specific to historical sciences, others - are universal.

1. "Have you personally checked?"

"No need to talk about someone's hypothesis or someone experiences - says opponent. - Stand-ka with sofa and:

• drag multi-ton unit,
• Saw granite saw copper,
• run up to the live bull and plug it in a wooden spear (as seriously demanded a debater, who believed that Neanderthals could not hunt). Well, we'll see! "

Yes, visual experiences - an important instrument of persuasion. But can we check every scientific statement? If from a school teacher to demand that her own hands she measured the temperature of the Sun and personally counted the number of neurons in the brain, the learning process will fall.

As I said at the beginning of the book, modern civilization is based on the distribution of knowledge and a reasonable confidence to the experts. Doubt is in some scientific data deemed to be justified, if they are unable to reproduce. Therefore opponent's argument turns against him, not to be unfounded, he must try to repeat the experimental conditions and get a negative result.

Scheme response roughly as follows: "This is an experiment. Here is a link to a detailed description. Specialists are professionally engaged in the topic, found it correct. You do not agree? Very well. Specify where in the error. And even better - try to repeat the experiment under the terms of publication. And if you do not work - go back and talk ".

2. "That's enough!" The constant increase of requirements to evidence

Opponent requires you to studies, but to the extent that you provide to them, he repeatedly raises the bar. More evidence! Reliable! Convincing! To even the "slits for there was no doubt!"

For example, the evolution of the opponent asks him to show transitional forms. After receiving an example, he states that "a questionable finding" it does not convince - and if it's not a fake? After several new examples it is that there is no trust to paleontologists that "one tooth coming up with the look of an animal." When the disputants explain that we are not talking about one tooth, but the skull and skeleton, it turns out that even such discoveries will not convince him, as "transitional forms must be millions."

That object to such demagoguery? Council is simple: capture your opponent's theses, and if it starts to "raise the bar" - to quote literally.

And then - to require confirmation: received the answer to the original question? Usually at this point debater begins to wriggle, wriggle and try to change the subject. Let! Adequate readers will see who is worth what in this dispute.

For example, in the discussion of the experiment for the production of copper pipe ancient Egyptian way someone says: "If up to now have lived Egyptian copper tubes, one could say about the level of their production and do not have these tubes, and no rest".

What do you mean "no tubes"? We show photos of Egyptian Wrangler copper pipes from the Museum of Egyptian Archeology Petrie in London.

Without batting an eye, the opponent continues, "What period is the copper tube from the museum of Sir William Flinders Petrie? Which of these tubes used for drilling granite? And what do you think about the fact that he himself Sir Petrie wrote about the technology of the ancient Egyptians? A really funny to watch people without technical education... " - and so on.

What to do? Just to quote the first assertion debater "Above, you wrote: "If up to now have lived Egyptian copper tubes, one could say about the level of their production, as these tubes there is no rest." I have shown you that the handset has. You acknowledge her mistake? Or you can not answer for his words?»

3. "Stealing Target"

The opponent is constantly changing his "testimony", so that the object of the dispute remains elusive.

• "Homeopathy, which criticized in the press - is not true homeopaths!
• Psychics, deceiving gullible citizens, - the usual con artists, and that's a real psychic - it is quite another matter.
• Yes, most of the artifacts found in Peru - primitive forgery, but there were discoveries and authentic, "primary" products - that's on them traces of manual processing is not visible even on makrofoto!
• Photos of flying saucers, published in the press - is a deliberate falsification to discredit the UFO phenomenon itself and to divert people's attention from the real facts. "

There unchecked statement. Whatever you say, you can always say, "This is not a real astrologer, not a genuine and" mimic "an artifact, not a real and fake UFO. And anyway, I talked about something else. "

Well, if so, further discussion is meaningless until your opponent fails to present itself to you this astrologer true homeopath. Well, or selfie with a stranger.

4. "Personal History"

As objections opponent tells the story: he himself or his friend or acquaintance of an acquaintance:

• I cured using homeopathy, prayer or miracle priborchiki;
• hands dispersed clouds;
• I am seen Bigfoot, UFOs, traces of laser cutters in Egypt;
• suddenly she started talking in an unknown language;
• poisoned GMO, nearly died of vaccinations.

Unfortunately, people tend to err and to dream. And yet - look for a connection where they are not. For some reason, the effect of homeopathy or miracle priborchiki disappears as soon as the normal start clinical trials.

Therefore, scientists are carefully and witnesses are asked to present something more substantial, tangible and measurable. Best of all, if someone has already studied this phenomenon and the results published in a scientific journal. We're talking about science?

Recently, at an event to me a woman came up and said that she had seen the yeti. The lady was expecting a comment from "science." «I am sure that you are an honest man, - I replied. - However, scientists are suspicious, they do not like the word, is not backed by evidence. The next time will meet bigfoot, try to have left to the scientists, in addition to your words, something tangible. Catch up with the monster and pull out his hair tuft. Obtain its feces, or, if not afraid, do so, that he has bitten you - even in the hands of scientists will get at least a saliva sample for genetic analysis».

Unfortunately, all the samples of wool "Bigfoot" is still coming across a scientist, after genetic examination proved hair bears, wolves, cows, or ordinary people.

5. jump

Your opponent randomly changes the subject of discussion: a conversation begins with paleontology, physics goes on, and then jump into the genetics and astronomy. Thus argued kills two birds: and affects the audience an incredible breadth of vision, and confuse the enemy, as the conversation moves to the areas in which the expert in the audience simply no.

One of the modifications of this approach is called "Gish gallop" on behalf of the American creationist Duane Gish. This figure pseudoscience famous aggressive style of debate in which opponents filled up with countless reasons, acting on the principle of "quantity more important than quality."

"Ernst Haeckel faked images of embryos! And your Piltdown Man - too fake! Ica stones, people on the dinosaurs! Lobe-finned fish are not changed for millions of years! Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics! Dating methods are wrong! " Try to argue anything. Trying to argue for any single argument of this cage, you will still look pale.

It is noticed that the less well versed in the topic under discussion debater, the easier it breaks down to "gallop".

On one of the scientific and popular visitor activities (introduced jeweler) did so: he started from Veles book, then switched to the drawings in the Nazca Desert, then jumped on the Higgs boson, but finished pathetic: "Has anyone ever seen a virus AIDS? "

The discussion, in fact dedicated to the teaching of biology in school, was killed, bewildered experts We wiped the sweat, and the "jeweler" devour twenty minutes total time, sat scared and pleased undefeated.

How to stop the galloping opponent? Hard to identify the boundaries of the discussion. Debater stop trying to "ride", and explained that the discussion really consider the issue 2-3, but not 150. Especially that for immersion in astrophysics astrophysics have to invite, in the wilds of DNA - genetics. Clarify what your opponent these themes hardly deeply studied. Ask debater designate 2-3 items that interested him most.

If the interviewee said that his equally concerned with all the items that take from them the one that is in your area of ​​competence - what can honestly declare. Express their views and to seek confirmation from the opponent - whether he is satisfied with the answer on this point.

So, act the same way as in paragraphs 2-3: try to manage the dialogue. And cites an opponent as soon as the discussion topic will start "jumping".

6. "Independent research" do not let go to content!

Science - a sect, closed to outsiders!

"If you and I want to go to the Olduvai Gorge, dig will not work! There is a guard with dogs. And there it all is literally on the surface of the fossil, they are scattered. You can pick them up, take a picture, if you paid the money, and put in place. They're destroyed, rains and all that... but something to endure, to describe - it's impossible. Because Americans have a monopoly ".

This is a quote from the speech of a certain Alexander Belov. This argument is useful if someone asks "alternative scientist" to present the results of his research. Of course, we could, if we were allowed, but only academics monopolies anybody are not admitted to the trough. We do not fund. We linked hands.

It is painfully reminiscent of the complaint "black diggers" - hunters treasure that evil scientists interfere with official deal with their innocent hobby - to devastate archaeological sites.

Dissatisfied "independent researcher" should ask a counter-question: "How would you react to the" surgeon-lover "without diploma, which would have cried that "the surgery - a sect," because he was not allowed into the operating room, not even an ordinary trust appendix? We would have taken you seriously connoisseur of art, unhappy that he can not carry a picture from the Louvre to his home, can not even "touch" it? Empathized be eccentric who wants to play football with the "Chelsea", but he was not allowed to enter the field? "

Yes, the man in the street will not be allowed into the operating room, will not be allowed to touch the values ​​or to participate in the competition. First show that you represent.

Science (as well as a professional sport) is undemocratic. How else?

How many archaeological sites were damaged, pillaged for souvenirs or simply destroyed "amateurs"! How many people are affected by healers quacks! Do I need to explain why science exist Filters by amateurs? You want to work with antiquities, to work in the laboratory or to treat people - and learn. Confirm their qualification. After graduating, defense, public. And then - you are welcome.

Of course, a prestigious laboratory, a valuable monument, a major project no you just do not trust. Recognition in science - a long and difficult path. I think this is correct. Offended by this stupid.

7. "In science, everything is constantly changing and is refuted"

Then your opponent asks if you are sure that your "official" theory will not be recognized tomorrow errors, and the current "pseudoscience" will not become mainstream? Maybe next year will find evidence that evolution was not? Then he gives examples to illustrate this point: Giordano Bruno was burned once, and Mendel's laws of genetics recognized with the offensive late, and even the French Academy of Sciences stated about the meteorite that "stones falling from the sky is not can. "

From this it follows, evidently, that no scientific statement can not be considered a true "to the end", because scientists have no way to distinguish truth from fiction. Scientific hypotheses, concepts, theories replace each other as if in a kaleidoscope, in obedience to the whims of fashion: today all wore long skirts, today - short. Yesterday was held in high esteem Lamarckism, Darwinism is quoted today, and tomorrow will be popular any nomogenesis Berg.

Ask a supporter of the "relativism" in science: if everything is so changeable and unpredictable as he will evaluate the possibility that someday the scientific world will return to the flat earth model in three whales? Even if someone really wants, such reversal is hardly possible.

Yes, scientific knowledge changes, but this is not happening randomly, not at the whim of the "academics".

There is a new hypothesis that better, more accurately describes the facts are consistent with many of the facts - and only in this case, it replaces the existing one.

Therefore, some models obsolete, while others are specified, the third immutable. The fact that the first law of Newton has not been canceled, you can easily check when your bus braked sharply. If you do not grab the handrail or neighbor - fly forward, continuing the "uniform motion".

In my opinion, the best way to counter the philosophical reasoning that everything is relative - the constant "landing" debate. Pressure your opponent specifics. Because philosophizing - a sure sign that the normal arguments "on the case" from the Wrangler is not. Thus, the direct question: what is the opponent can not argue, in principle, and specifically on the subject under discussion? What facts lead?

8. "This is not a rigorous proof!"

Statement about any hypothesis related to the events of the past. "You show that this could be, but who can guarantee that was the case? - declares opponent.? - A 100% if it is proved that this creature - human ancestor "Before answering, ask: Is it possible, in principle, according to your opponent, study the past? And that would be a 100% proof in such a situation? Written certificate with the seal of a notary? DNA analysis? Flight time machine?

Here is an example of how anthropologists hypothesize. The expedition in 2013 near Kharkov during the excavation of burials beginning of our era there were two skulls among the many remains a curious feature: the crowded front teeth. This is called "crowding." After examining the skull, an anthropologist Stanislav Drobyshevskiy immediately suggested that the remains belonged to close relatives - perhaps the father and son (male skull). Why? Because we see an inherited characteristic that is only at the two skulls among dozens of others in the cemetery. Can we say "one hundred percent proof"? Of course not. This is just a hypothesis. But this explanation is more likely than a coincidence.

If the study of the skeletons show up new details indicate the relationship, it will increase the validity of the hypothesis, but all the same we will never get these "one hundred percent". In the historical sciences 100% and can not be, and is not required.

In the study of the distant past are similar principles of evidence: evidence for the hypothesis should outweigh arguments against. If the opponent does not agree with this approach, it is necessary once again to ask him to give an example of "completely proven" facts relating to antiquity.

9. "If something I do not know - nobody knows!"

I would greatly simplify the situation if said all supporters of pseudoscience - poorly educated people. In fact, far from it. Among creationists "alternative historians" and conspiracy theorists sometimes there are holders of academic degrees and people uncommon erudition. This suggests that education and intellect in themselves do not make us invulnerable - pseudoscientific ideas are dangerous just by the fact that they are able to strike our mind, bypassing the knowledge and logic.

Nevertheless, the low level of education pseudoscientists simplifies the task. Often the most desperate subversives "official science" - those for whom the main source of knowledge are videos on YouTube in a series of "Scientists hide." As usual, the worse your opponent owns a topic, the more confidence and aplomb, he states that:

• transitional forms have not been found;
• there is no historical evidence of the builders of the pyramids;
• nobody saw the lunar soil, supposedly was brought by the Americans;
• tools that quarried stone ancient inhabitants of Peru are unknown;
• scientists failed to repeat the experience on the cloning of Dolly the sheep;
• there is no evidence of the existence of HIV.

If you know that your opponent is wrong, then just carry on polemics. It suffices to show by way of example, that all "not exactly": the transitional forms are well known, and the builders of the pyramids excavated settlement on the lunar soil can be found in dozens of museums around the world (including the Memorial Museum of Cosmonautics in Moscow), and HIV is the most studied of all viruses and commercial cloning cats is conducted for more than 10 years old. Of course, that denial was valid, we need references to scientific publications.

If your opponent's argument is a stranger to you, but it seems questionable, ask about the source of his information. Ask, what interests is non-fiction, not video and blogs. With a chance to find out that the interlocutor does not understand the difference. […]

Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Georgy Sokolov suggests that there are five levels of ignorance. And one of the reasons for the spread of misconceptions that these levels confused. I like the idea of ​​George:

levels of ignorance

• Level 1. Something I do not know.
• Level 2. Something does not know my neighbor, a friend, a reputable specialist for me.
• Level 3. Something does not know a particular scientist who studied the specific problem. Its publication in a certain year in a certain publication does not answer some of the questions about what he says honestly. This is normal: a true scientist always understand the limits of their knowledge.
• Level 4. Something not known to modern science. And that's okay too: there is a field for further research. But talking about it can only be well aware of the current situation in this field of science.
• Level 5. Something even unknowable, inaccessible, weird.

Another myth is born when we confuse the level 1 to level 4, or worse, with the 5th level.

For example, architect Jean-Pierre ancestors, studying the Inca constructions, found that in some cases the ancient builders sawed stones. And honestly I wrote: "What tools are used to this, I do not know yet." How to present this fact? Said investigators now - in this article beginning of the 1980s - did not find the answer to the question? Well, if you really want to intrigue, it can be formulated as follows: ancestors to this problem "afraid to approach because they can not explain what he saw or even just assumed ...». So there is another legend about the gods inscrutable technology.

10. And the official science explains these photos?

It is an integral part of almost any Internet dispute. In the chapter on domestic thinking, we have already talked about the fact that "the public believes the eyes." Bright picture acts convincingly abstruse a few pages of text. And even more - if lots of pictures.

Conspirologists exhibit remarkable image in which, for clarity or red arrows mugs say "apparent inconsistencies in the official version of" See, the sticks of the Egyptian pyramids fittings! This is concrete! (In fact, the iron rod was on the plate "breaks is forbidden.")

experienced "disrupter covers"Argue that the volcanic craters - actually craters from nuclear explosions, and mesas in the US - the stumps left from the huge fossilized trees (look at the photos, it's true that like?).

Photo laboratory rats coated monstrous tumors used for intimidation viewers terrors GMOs. Skull alien skeletons of gigantic proportions, pictures of "anomalous artifacts" wander from blog to blog.

And in the comments: "Unbelievable! You have opened my eyes! Amazing information! The world will never be the same again! I am waiting for the continuation! "

But a little cool down and ask: Does the author know where, when and who made this photo? Where the original source? If the author states the extraordinary antiquity, how determined the age? Approximately? Are there other perspectives, photo from different distances? Similarly, if the photograph depicts the object for which it claims to be?

Not once, not twice "unique ancient artifact" renders remakes - whether it is a bas-relief with the astronaut on the Gothic cathedral, concrete overlay on an Egyptian stele or that most corn in a Roman mosaic. […]

Therefore, the photo may only be a subsidiary argument in this scientific dispute, and only under the condition that clearly indicated the source.

11. "You are a humanitarian!"

Usually this phrase, uttered a scornful tone and converts, for example, a historian, is, "You know nothing about architecture, astronomy and metallurgy. Therefore, I am now - a pro in these areas - I will show you that the whole of your story - nonsense. "

In fact, historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, if necessary, actively involve consultants from natural science or application areas. In some cases, without their help, do not do. Age archaeological findings determined in special laboratories. Chemists have analyzed the composition of the material from which it was created, trasologii microscopically examine the surface of the artifact, to understand how it was used. For the reconstruction of ancient technologies exist experimental archeology. To research today is increasingly attracted to geneticists.

That is the findings of historians humanities regularly supported by the work of experts in the natural sciences.

In archeology and anthropology, almost from their very emergence of widely used methods of mathematical statistics.

Objecting incredulous techies, it may be recalled that, in any area of ​​specialization exists: if you are a roofer, is not a fact that is well versed in the wiring. In addition, changing approaches and technologies that something is improving, but something is going away and forgotten. Modern programmer is unlikely to show the class in writing code is no longer used in ALGOL. Therefore, to know contemporary craft, even perfectly, is not enough: if you do not own the history of the problem - you sit in a puddle.

If anyone considers himself a specialist in the processing of stone, should show him the master class on making of stone tools by professional archaeologist and propose to repeat what he saw. Here's a piece of flint, that set of baffles. Forward! An hour should have Acheulean hand ax. Does not work? Is it not taught in college... Apparently not. Art handmade stone processing, improve millennia (Stone Age lasted more than 3 million years old!), With the advent of the era of iron lost. So that the diploma does not help. This thought should try to convey to the opponent.

What to say in conclusion? Be patient and quiet, if you do controversy for educational purposes. Light irony - a sign of strength, but personal attacks and malicious ridicule usually announce that the arguments are over, and the party of the dispute is rapidly losing face in the eyes of the audience. Do not seek to stigmatize or ridicule the opponent. Do not alienate people. Let the readers or viewers will appreciate your calm, respectful tone.

---

Science has reached unprecedented heights, but people still continue to believe in the yeti, the mysterious alien experiments, and the danger of GMOs. Alexander Sokolov in his book "Scientists hide? Myths of the XXI century"Explains how to distinguish a real scientist from Adept pseudoscience, and debunks popular myths.