In the skeptical community, many times the keys to successful discussion are tone and structure. It is sad that we have to constantly fight against misconceptions of skeptical aggressiveness and arrogance, when really people are simply offended when you call them out on not arguing with actual arguments. Consequently, one of the main components to maintaining a professional, reasonable tone is to follow the common rules of rational discussion.
Here are a few pointers and rules to follow if you want to have an intellectual discussion and not just bang you head against a wall.
Can We Talk About This Like Reasonable People?
Being good skeptics, we know that we frequently argue with those of a non-logical persuasion. This may be for any number of reasons; the person may have never learned formal debate and logic, or perhaps they are just stubborn. The topics that seem the loudest within the skeptic community are those where we argue with people who have a chronic lack of debate etiquette. It is with those who we feel we are beating our heads against a wall (creationists, homeopaths, etc.) that following the rules for rational discussion is most important.
Let us first look at some examples illustrating the difference between using these rules or ignoring them.
Example 1 (No Rules):
Me: Can we talk about your belief in a god?
Religious Person: I am resolute in my faith, nothing will change my mind, and I will not listen to any anti-religious arguments, including any evidence you may present.
DISCUSSION OVER– Well we didn’t get very far did we? This kind of discussion is always pointless, and you should not waste your time on such closed mindedness.
Example 1 Continued (No Rules):
Me: So why don’t you agree with evolution?
Religious Person: Because it says in the Bible that God made all life.
Me: I know that’s what the book says, but do you have any other evidence?
Religious Person: I don’t need proof, I have faith.
DISCUSSION OVER– The religious person has ignored an important rule when he/she refused or was unable to provide evidence for their claim. Any claim that wants to be taken seriously needs to be dealt with using at least some form of evidence.
Example 1 Continued (No Rules):
Religious Person: I don’t have any evidence, but I have faith. However, I am willing to listen to your argument for evolution, so what proof do you have?
Me: Although I cannot personally show you the genuine articles, evidence has been gathered for over 200 years. There is molecular, genetic, fossil, artificial, physiological, geologic, behavioral, developmental, demonstrable evidence (among many other lines of evidence) that you can find outlined in any museum or biology textbook. All of this evidence discredits the creation accounts in the Bible.
Religious Person:That can’t be true, it says so in the Bible. God is beyond science and the Bible is 100% true.
Me: I know that’s what the book says, but do you have any actual evidence that the Bible is 100% true?
Religious Person: What do you think about how perfect the human eye is? What about your evidence for that?
DISCUSSION OVER– Although we got further than the first example the religious person still uses an argument that he/she has not established with any proof. Furthermore, he/she then sidesteps another request for evidence by changing the subject. Both of these render the discussion meaningless.
Example 2 (Rules):
Me: The Bible does not explain dinosaurs, and evolution coupled with fossil evidence can explain it naturally [lest you admit that we have trickster for a god]. Can you reconcile the massive amount of evidence for the evolution and existence of dinosaurs?
Religious Person: The existence of dinosaurs seems very well established, and you make an interesting point about this relating to the evolution of dinosaurs.
Me: So will you reconsider you position?
Religious Person: Explain your evidence further please.
DISCUSSION SUCCESSFUL– Although the religious person has not made a 180 degree flip, they have at least been swayed to listen by arguments supported with evidence without ignoring them. This is the beginning of a reasonable discussion.
So then, we have come to the rules I have been referring to. Although the graphic below is labeled “Debating a Christian”, these rules apply to any intelligent discussion about any topic; from religion and the supernatural, to science and philosophy. Following these rules and regulations of reasonable debate should reduce the number of frustrated, name-calling, pointless, exchanges concerning important topics.
Science-Based Life 
Nice Post, you bring up some very important points when discussing certain “sensitive” topics with others. I definitely noticed your frustration, particularly regarding the religious folk. I have run into many of these types of people over the years as well. There is nothing more exasperating than a conversation that ultimately goes nowhere.
I would like to comment on one thing though, a discussion is a type of interaction between at least two parties to present their sides of a topic, idea, plan, etc. The flowchart you provided mentioned that a “sermon” and “lecture” are different than a discussion. In a sermon or lecture, basically one person, or party, is sharing information and is presenting it in a persuasive manner and those listening aren’t usually given time for a rebuttal. Logically, one can gather that a discussion is, in fact, NOT persuasive in nature. So to start a discussion by asking if someone will or will not change their mind on the issue(s) is actually a very childish way of trying to point out stubbornness or picking “easy wins.” Just because someone is not willing to change their view, it doesn’t prove the other side right on the issue(s), just by default of stubbornness.
There are many issues on which I do not foresee myself changing my mind. But that doesn’t mean I am unwilling to hear the other side of an argument. (As you eluded to in your last example). Because I don’t know everything, I can not accurately state, at the beginning of the discussion, that “I believe there is nothing that can change my mind.” I must first hear the alternate claim on the issue(s) then assess if it does change my view.
Don’t get me wrong, I completely understand the waste of time issue, as well. But I believe at that point, one must have an understanding of why they want to present their issue(s) and what is their desired outcome of sharing. Imagine yourself on the other side. Would you want to hear someone share with you, just so they can feel justified and get a “win” under their belt, or would you prefer to hear from someone who genuinely had something to share, for your benefit? Of course, you would want to hear something that benefits you. It comes down to the question, “how does this effect me for the good/bad?”
Also, in, what I’ll label as step #3, in the flow chart, “Are you prepared to abide by basic principles of reason in discussing this topic?” and the side notes that clarifies this step, I feel needs to be completely rewritten. It is flawed to think that only one side of the argument can be right. With proper discussion and study, one or more parties involved may come to the conclusion that there must be a compromise or a blending of the two(or more) ideas presented.
I’ve come across many atheists, evolutionists, creationist, cultists, and plenty of “know-it-alls” from other organizations and groups, present themselves as the stubborn, unwilling to learn, “I believe, because I want to”, kind of people. All that to say, sometimes picking your battles is simply just picking your battles. I would however be careful in making generalized statements that label a specific group as a whole. Though you may be talking about the majority you can’t truthfully claim it over the entire group. Always leave room for a margin of error.
I apologize for the lengthy comment. I know I am a man of many words. :) Overall, this is a great post and brings up many other topics surrounding conversational etiquette and simply treating others with respect. Have a wonderful day!
I agree with the comments you are making, however, the objective of this post was not to elucidate the finer points of discussion between rational/non-emotion laden/logical people, but of discussions that are much more heated. Sure, as you stated, there are many gray shades when it comes to discussion, and compromise is necessary, but when, for example, you debate a creationist, many of the arguments have very little gray (i.e. either God created all life beginning with Adam or he didn’t).
Because of this ideological focus, I will stand behind the flow chart. Because we sometimes have to deal with hard-headed ideologues (on both sides) it is very useful, either verbally or otherwise, to find out whether or not this person is up for changing their minds based upon reasonable arguments. It is not simply about “winning” the argument, or the possibility of winning, but judging the value of the discussion itself. I know that I may not change someone’s mind about evolution, but if they listen to and evaluate arguments logically then I feel like there is headway to be made (at least).
When you mention step #3 in the chart, I disagree with you conclusion, because in the case that I am considering in this post, there are “right” and “wrong” arguments. Many of the arguments that we [skeptics] deal with are quite scientific in nature. For instance, a creationist saying “there is no evidence for evolution” can be proven with evidence, and if we are resting upon a foundation of logic, there is no compromise, either the evidence proves you right or it does not.
Of course, I am not saying that you shouldn’t treat people’s arguments with respect. But in cases where logic and evidence are in question, it is to these reasonable rules that we must look. Like I said, in most cases I would agree with you. However, if you are arguing with some of the “know-it-alls” sometimes reason is all we have to keep the discussion from becoming unruly.
Anyway, thanks for the great comment!
Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression you were sharing rules on ALL types of discussions. I should have gathered that from all of your examples you were focusing mainly on evolution v. creation debates and the such.
And yes, you’re right, in these situations there is little if any gray areas at all. It’s either or. Many theologians and evolutionists have tried to blend the two and came up with Theistic Evolution, but in my opinion, it distorts the Bible’s actual words and changes many of the claims made by evolution. In studying both of these claims made by creationist and evolutionists, I have found that there can be no compromise between the two, which means only one can be right, or neither and were all in the “Matrix”. (Sorry I couldn’t resist)
Again, these are very important rules for discussion. Like you said, because these can become very heated, rules are need to keep the dialog professional and respectful. Especially when dealing with evolution v. creation, because many see and view the world and how they live, by what they believe. Their beliefs are very close to them and more often than not, that brings emotion into the situation. Which at that point, rules really need become a focus. :)
So again, Kudos for a great post. I think these rules go beyond just discussions, but communication in general. I’m sure we could both go on about people’s horrible communication skills, but that’s for another time.
Have a great day!