Is there a way to logically talk someone out of a belief when they arrived at the belief without logic?

Only if they allow you to. You can show someone logic and fact, but you can’t force them to understand or believe. It seems some people prefer to form opinions based on feelings rather than logic.

Certainly Fluther is fertile ground for experiments. Try it, and let us know.

Even if there’s a way I doubt they want to compromise with your logically idea. It just hard for people from different/opposing ideology/foundation to accept your idea. I also wondering when rationality will affect people all around the world as whole.

No the definition of belife and logic are mutually exclusive until logic verifies belief. You cannot prove a “belief”, it is and must be based on something outside of logic.

Logic is a tool for processing information, and functions best within a paradigm. Most complex beliefs and systems are logically ordered.
The real trick is to get a person to abandon their own paradigm for yours. Plain ol’ pride is sufficient to prevent that.

Beliefs are never arrived at without a rational reason. That is, no one ever believes a thing without some sort of evidence. This is a fact of life. The only things you believe are the things that are evident to you as sensible to believe.

Controlling another person’s beliefs is as easy as putting your hand in the air. If your hand is in the air, and they are observing you, then they will believe your hand is in the air. When you put your hand down, they believe your hand is down. You can move your hand up and down to control what the observer is believing about the position of your hand.

You can’t really use logic to take on belief head to head, because you’ll never win against someone who won’t listen or isn’t bound by the rules. The closest thing you can do find out what causes that belief, and try to dismantle that.

We could argue all day about the invisible, ethereal dragon that lives in my garage, but no matter what logical basis you give me as to why it’s not there, I can always come up with an excuse; especially since I don’t have to convince you, I have to convince me.

Now if you found out that I believe in the dragon because, say, I desperately needed some form of companionship, you could probably work on that angle until I didn’t need to believe in Herber… er, the ethereal dragon.

Belief has some kind of basis, it doesn’t spring from nothing. It’s really just a matter of finding what causes said belief, and working on that.

I think it depends on the belief. There are a few types where you can show evidence and that might, eventually, convince someone. However, there are times when you can’t do anything.

If you can dig deep enough into the source of the belief you have a chance. But that takes time and you need to be careful not to annoy/piss off/bore the other person in the meantime.

Logic Shmogic. We’re all completely lost. And no, there is no logical argument you could possibly make that could convince me otherwise.

@RocketSquid As @ninjacolin said, every belief has its evidence. You wouldn’t just wake up one morning with the belief that there’s an invisible ethereal dragon in the garage. But if you had an Ethereal Dragon Detect-o-Meter, and it would go off whenever you put it in the garage…
I dare say that in the case of extreme loneliness you’d latch onto an actual physical object, like the Companion Cube, or perhaps Wilson.

The way the person arrived at the conclusion is not as relevant as the way they think about it right now. Everyone makes uneducated guesses from time to time, which are far from logical. If you are prepared to think about those guesses logically and see whether you were right or not, then there is hope. If you are not prepared to go over the belief or do not recognise that it was a guess to start off with, there is little hope.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I disagree.

It’s not your job. Everyone developes their own belief system and philosophy for life.

@perspicacious I disagree. If you could convince the Taliban that they have no right to treat people the way they do, wouldn’t you? Or would you prefer to sit back and say they are entitled to their beliefs?

@FireMadeFlesh That is a radical ideology of a group; quite different from individual human development, which includes belief systems, ethics, and morals. The question is taken by me to refer to an individual. The poster did say “someone.”

@perspicacious We do not know how harmful or otherwise the beliefs of this individual are, so we are not in a position to judge whether or not the OP should attempt to change their beliefs.

@FireMadeFlesh You have to separate beliefs and actions. No one should have an attitude as that of the poster, and possibly you. Beliefs do not harm; behavior harms. You may gather 20,000 people would do not “believe” in aborting a baby as a means of birth control. You nor anyone else should try to change their “beliefs.” You and everyone else has the right to not be harmed by actions of the group fueled by their belief. The poster’s question is general, and the general answer is that “it’s not his job.”.

Logic is in the eyes of the beholder and one person’s logic and reasoning may be perfectly logical to them but not to you. I agree with @perspicacious.

@perspicacious “You have to separate beliefs and actions.”
What determines actions, if not beliefs? How can you change the way someone acts, if not by challenging their beliefs?
“No one should have an attitude as that of the poster, and possibly you.”
The fact remains that some beliefs are harmful, and since we cannot judge whether those referred to in the question are harmful or not there is no reason to suppose that the beliefs in question should not be changed.

Will, self control, strength of character.

I understand this is something you simply cannot grasp.

@perspicacious These are all affected by beliefs. Anyone can show limitless self-control if they think the consequences of acting rashly are severe enough. A person’s strength of character is measured by their ability to hold to their beliefs under pressure, and is therefore a measure of how persuasive their beliefs are.

“I understand this is something you simply cannot grasp.”
There is no need to make this personal. I understand your point of view, but I regard it as another repetition of NOMA. No one should have the right to hold a belief and expect other people to respect it.

First of all, I have to ask, logic according to whom? It’s not as if logic is an absolute.

Second, I have noticed that emotion is often able to change people’s ideas and beliefs much more so than appealing to the intellect. It’s much harder to dismiss powerful emotions than it is to dismiss so-called logic.

It presumably works with small children, if you first teach them how and why logic works. Though maybe for them it’s not logic but your authority as an adult that does most of the convincing.

@tinyfaery
“First of all, I have to ask, logic according to whom? It’s not as if logic is an absolute.”
Good point. We should delimit ourselves to logic according to just the human species.

@Fyrius Logic is part of a paradigm. Paradigms vary; therefore, what people see as logical will vary.

@tinyfaery
Hm.
But we all have a human brain. And logic is such a fundamental part of the human mind – whether it’s used consciously or just underlyingly – that at least a large chunk of it must be universal. Just like mathematics.
For example, I don’t think there could exist people who would disagree that if A = B and B = C, then A = C. Or that A = A. Or that “if A, then B” means “if not B, then not A.”
That’s not just a matter of culture. That’s innate. Our brains simply can’t operate any other way by nature.

Whatever.

Not worth it.

Thomas Aquinas put faith above reason, meaning that you could only go so far with proof of things and after that had to have faith in your beliefs. According to that paradigm, people with strong beliefs (particularly, but not exclusively, religious) will never be talked out of them by reason. Increasingly, in America at least, this seems to go for political beliefs as well.

Find out what their story is. Listen with sympathy. Your goal is to understand how they came to this belief—what experiences brought them to that belief. Once you understand that, you will understand the logic of their belief. You may also, if you choose, be able to talk about some events in that story and offer alternative explanations for them.

You must do this kindly, not argumentatively. You must do this with sympathy and empathy for the other person, or it will never even have a chance, It hardly has a chance anyway,

Lastly, you can tell your own story about how you came to your belief. It is the juxtaposition of stories that enlightens us the most. Logic and argument are for philosophers. Most of us aren’t philosophers. Even philosophers aren’t philosophers. We all have experience and feelings and logic is not a very human thing.

The myth that logic is better than emotion is just that: a myth. Math is another language. It allows us to discuss some things more precisely, but it doesn’t get rid of communications problems. But you can get to the same place using natural language, too. In the end, you can’t understand a person without understanding their story, and if you understand their story, you might be able to influence them to change the way they tell that story. Maybe.

I think there are many ways. The biography of this man can give us some clues:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shermer

and I quote

“After years of practicing acupuncture, chiropractic, massage therapy, negative ions, rolfing, pyramid power, fundamentalist Christianity, and “a host of weird things” (with the exception of drugs) to improve his life and training, Shermer stopped rationalizing the failure of these practices.” (see further links to articles)

I think we can systematically debunk pseudoscientific/paranormal claims. Telepathy is one of my favorites:

Picture a man and a women in a car talking about politics. They pass a building made of clay brick (which is kind of unusual in the area) without noticing it. Well, their conscious minds don’t notice it. All of the sudden the man says, hey, I’m hungry, how about some pepperoni pizza tonight. The woman turns, astonished. Hey, I just thought the same thing. Pepperoni pizza. Telepathy? Looks like it. Scientific explanation: associative cortex. Both their unconscious minds noticed the building made of clay brick they just passed. 6 weeks earlier they had a wonderful evening in a different town and ate pepperoni pizza in a nice building made of clay brick. The sex later that evening was great.

Bad plumbing in a house for example might create sounds made by “ghosts”. Being abducted by aliens might be due to schizophrenia which is a mental disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality. It most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking with significant social or occupational dysfunction.

Shermer also suggests that fixing Wikipedia articles is a good way to talk someone out of superstitious or paranormal beliefs. Here’s why:

http://www.skeptic.com/get_involved/fix_wikipedia.html

and I quote

“Is it worth paying attention to Wikipedia? Yes, it absolutely is. This is a shining opportunity for the skeptical movement. Wikipedia is among the most important public sources for almost any scientific, pseudoscientific, or paranormal topic. A Wikipedia article is almost always the number one Google hit for that subject. Amazingly, any grassroots skeptic can make responsible improvements to that source at any time, easily and for free.

You can personally correct any Wikipedia article. As long as you can cite references, you can add the best available skeptical information to any article that needs it. When you add footnote references, you can even link directly to skeptical websites. You don’t need anyone’s permission. For simple text edits, you don’t even need web coding skills. Best of all, it’s rewarding and fun to use your skeptical knowledge to enhance an essential public resource.”

Just for the record: Logic doesn’t work without emotions. Any neuroscientist will confirm this. Even skeptical logical people need emotions to think properly.

Logic has severe limits. Perceptions can easily be false (and often aren’t falsifiable), but conclusions based on those perceptions can be logical. This is probably more where problems with irrationality lie.

@bolwerk
Still, even with less than perfect premises, I think logic is more likely to lead to the truth than anything one might use in its place.

@Fyrius: logic by itself has no truth value. It can only be used to create conclusions based on the premises available.

@bolwerk
Naturally.

I asked this question as I went to bed, as the point was brought up in the latest Point of Inquiry podcast.

To @dpworkin I have tried. Most times unsuccessfully

To @ninjacolin I don’t understand “beliefs are never arrived without a rational reason.” Can you please explain what you mean by this? Let’s say as @mattbrowne said, that someone believes in telepathy. What possible rational reason based upon logic could that belief be held?

To @perspicacious in response to “it’s not my job.” Not sure what you mean by this. If you’re saying that I should allow people to continue to post authoratitively about things they believe in that have no evidence (say, like homeopathy), then I strongly disagree.

@Rarebear It’s not your job to try to change anyone’s beliefs.

@Rarebear
À propos of rational reasons to believe in telepathy: that’s probably possible, given enough misinformation.

With that said, I don’t think every belief of every person derives from rational thought.
For example, the grown-ups planted ideas in each of our heads before we were old enough to think rationally, and many of them stuck around. There are also beliefs that are actually innate.

@perspicacious Yeah, you said that. I asked you to expound further and you just wrote what you wrote before. I repeat—what do you mean, it’s “not my job?” Are you suggestion I let possibly dangerous beliefs go unchallenged just to be nice?

@Rarebear People may believe what they want; they are not free to act any way they want. There is no need to go through this again. Read the thread.

@perspicacious I did read the thread. I started it. I do agree that what is important is actions rather than thoughts. More often than not, though, those thoughts and beliefs are put into action, say like taking a son with cancer to a homeopathist instead of an oncologist, or denying them vaccines and later watching them die of measles.

So let me rephrase the question. If those illogical beliefs lead to possibly dangerous actions, are you still bound to keep silent?

@Rarebear What is logical to you may not be to someone else. There is too much emphasis here trying to mold people to all be the same. It will never, and should never, be. Yes, you are bound to keep silent as to the beliefs. When actions cross what is legal and acceptable public policy intervention comes about.

(A propos of this discussion – particularly in terms of medicine – is the book The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down by Ann Fadiman. @Rarebear, you may be well aware of it. It is about a Hmong family in America whose daughter has epilepsy and the family refuses treatment because in her culture she is seen as a Shaman. Raises troubling questions about the intestirces between culture and science. I recommend it to anyone interested in these issues.)

only have a few minutes.. @perspicacious you’re proposing an ethical standard for treating people’s beliefs that is short sighted. you could try to run society the way you suggest but it would be shitty. i’m happy that you have no right to believe whatever you want. you only deserve to believe whatever makes sense to you. if i say something that makes sense to you, you will believe it whether you want to or not. that’s to my benefit because i might be trying to make you believe calling an ambulance is more important than standing around in awe at the scene of a terrible accident.

it’s my job to make the world into the best possible place that I can perceive. if that means convincing you to stop worshiping a false deity that holds society back.. awesome.

@Rarebear no one believes in telepathy without evidence. for example, I’m sure you don’t know anyone who does and if you do, ask them “why do you believe in telepathy?” and they will tell you what evidence they’ve observed.

Logic has two sides: a sound side and a fallacious side. Conclusions and beliefs are formed one way or the other.

@perspicacious Okay, then I couldn’t disagree with you more. If a Creationist biology teacher starts teaching her students about Intelligent Design, I’m going to call her out. Every time.

@Rarebear – Biology teachers need to stick to the official curriculum released by the supervisory school authorities (boards of education). Therefore creationism cannot be taught in science classes, unless the supervisory school authorities is made up of creationists. Which isn’t the case, at least in Germany. And from what I heard even states like Kansas creationism is no longer considered science. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings

So teachers can’t decide on their own, right?

@perspicacious
Anyone who honestly believes that “logic” can be different for different people is probably actually talking about something other than logic. No, logic is the same for everyone. Though most people don’t know enough about formal logic to understand very advanced logical deductions, yours truly included.

Logic is as universal as math. “A = A” is not just a personal belief or even a cultural dogma, it’s an inevitable truth. A logical necessity.
No human brain can operate without the universal laws of logic. You’re more likely to find people with two heads than people with non-logical brains that still work. We may be diverse, but we’re not that diverse.

Different people might use different reasoning that’s still consistent with universal logic in a different way. I think that’s what you were thinking of.

@Rarebear
“If you’re saying that I should allow people to continue to post authoratitively about things they believe in that have no evidence (say, like homeopathy), then I strongly disagree.”

I’m questioning how you got the authority to “allow” or disallow” anyone to post any belief they would like to express. I posit that, in spite of all your education and experience, you still don’t know everything. In fact, if you weren’t so busy trying to control other people’s thoughts and ideas, you just might learn something. It’s been acknowledged on here, even among those as closed minded as some on this post, that Science hasn’t got it all figured out yet. Perhaps some of these ideas that you deem to be radical may be the next “new idea”.

@ninjacolin
“it’s my job to make the world into the best possible place that I can perceive. if that means convincing you to stop worshiping a false deity that holds society back.. awesome.”

When and how did it get to be your “job” to designate what others should believe. Heck, even someone as powerful as our President, or, even someone’s “God” doesn’t assume that right. Your perception of the best possible world may have no bearing on the perception of others, and you should know that your opinions are not even in the majority in this world.

I have to say, I’m awestruck at your audacity in believing that you know better than anyone else what the truth might be, and/or what is best for the rest of the world. You both sound a great deal like the proselytzing religions which you so abhor. If you feel that they have no right to attempt to “convert” non-believers to their POV, why should you feel entitled to do exactly the same thing?

I believe that others have the right to make their own decisions, based upon their own definition of “logic”, whatever that might be.

I have a good idea… how about if you don’t try to “pressure” me to believe what you are sure is the truth, and I won’t try to “pressure” you. That’s called showing respect. And it’s called maturity. Persuasion is fine, but your job descriptions go far beyond mere persuasion, therefore you are wrong.

@eden2eve People are free to post what they like. I am also free to disagree with them or even belittle them if I choose. It is laughable that you think I am “trying to control other people’s thoughts and ideas.” I am lamenting the fact that people cling to irrational beliefs in the face of rationality and data.

There is truth. And there is fiction. This is real. It is truth that Homo sapiens and Pan paniscus evolved from a common ancestor. It is truth that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It is truth that dinosaurs and humans did not walk the Earth in the same era. It is truth that Apollo 11 did indeed land on the Moon. It is truth that your relative mass increases as you travel closer to the speed of light. All of these are indisputable. There is a truth and a reality to the world.

@Draconess25 Your link led me to a website with a bunch of popup ads. Can you relink? I disagree that the world is “what you create”. The world is what the world is. There are indisputable natural realities that whether you believe them or not, are still true.
.

@Rarebear Meh, I don’t feel like relinking. Maybe later.

@Draconess25 Yup. Your link just dumped a bunch of spyware onto my computer.

@Draconess25 Seriously? That sucks. Then wouldn’t it be a bad idea to relink, anyways?

@eden2eve said: “When and how did it get to be your “job” to designate what others should believe.”

“Job” was being used facetiously. I’ll rephrase more accurately: It would be morally reprehensible on my part to withhold truths about the universe that I’ve discovered that could help my fellow man to advance alongside myself.

“Heck, even someone as powerful as our President, or, even someone’s “God” doesn’t assume that”

Any god that doesn’t believe education important is false. Any president that isn’t in favor of sharing good ideas shouldn’t be president.

“Your perception of the best possible world may have no bearing on the perception of others,”

I wouldn’t expect it to have any bearing on their perception until after they’ve learned why my ideas are logically superior to theirs. In that exchange, if I should happen to learn that my ideas are inferior, they would gain the convert instead of me.

“and you should know that your opinions are not even in the majority in this world.”

yet.

“I have to say, I’m awestruck at your audacity in believing that you know better than anyone else what the truth might be, and/or what is best for the rest of the world.”

I don’t believe anything by choice. I believe only based on evidence. Don’t blame me for my beliefs, blame my experiences. I’m not saying that I can’t be wrong, I’m open to being wrong. But it’s your “job” to make it evident to me. Obviously, if it become evident to me that I was wrong, I would change my course. And I expect the same for you.

“You both sound a great deal like the proselytizing religions which you so abhor. If you feel that they have no right to attempt to “convert” non-believers to their POV, why should you feel entitled to do exactly the same thing?”

I’m not opposed to others sharing the truths they’ve discovered with me.

“I believe that others have the right to make their own decisions, based upon their own definition of “logic”, whatever that might be.”

That’s not a right so much as a law of physics that everyone will believe according to what convinces them. This applies to the definition of logic as well as any other definition or understanding. But some definitions/understandings are demonstrably superior to others.

“how about if you don’t try to “pressure” me to believe what you are sure is the truth, and I won’t try to “pressure” you. That’s called showing respect. And it’s called maturity. Persuasion is fine, but your job descriptions go far beyond mere persuasion, therefore you are wrong.”

It’s not possible to go further than persuasion. Persuasion is all we can hope to use to convince others to our way of thinking.

@Draconess25 Indeed. I’m going to flag your answer, if you don’t mind, just so nobody makes the same mistake. I thought you might have had a typo or something. Turns out it’s not that bad. I ran a spyware removal program and I found the malware and uninstalled it.

@Rarebear Go ahead. It’s just weird, since I never get spyware. Even from those crappy lyrics websites.

@mattbrowne In response to your Creationism post. No, teachers have to go by the required curriculum. But in the instance I’m talking about, she didn’t (it really happened). I notified the National Center for Science Education about it.

@Draconess25 You must be using a Mac.

@Rarebear Nope. PC.

@Rarebear
@ninjacolin
@eden2eve
On proselytising:
Just flat-out telling people what to believe is of course a pretty condescending thing to do, which is bad, not to mention completely counter-productive. Nonetheless making the world a more rational place would be a very worthwhile goal.
A better resolution would be to inform people about fallacies and biases and other logical mistakes, and how to avoid and correct for them, and then urge them to reconsider for themselves whatever superstition initially made you frown; letting reason itself do the convincing, and ultimately leaving the choice to change their minds up to them.
And then you hope for the best.

A certain wise person has already made a series of instructions/advice on how to do this. He calls it raising the sanity waterline.

@Fyrius I agree. It is not about telling them what to think, but teaching them how to think. Once they know how to think, you can respect their conclusions. An illogical or poorly thought out conclusion does not deserve respect.

@eden2eve I think you’re confusing people’s right to not be harassed with people’s right to hold a belief. There are certainly inappropriate ways to go about changing people’s beliefs and its not always the time or place to do it. But certainly if someone holds to a belief that will/can cause harm, we have a moral responsibility to try to change it.

Of course, there are a lot of things that are up for debate. These are things for which we don’t have enough evidence and the logical answer to these questions is “I don’t know.” In these situations, people will have different ideas of what is (probably) correct which will be heavily influenced by their background. If this is what you mean by people having different definitions of logic, then I’d suggest that, at the very least, you need to find a new word. This isn’t a different form of logic, its just logic with different premises. (If this is not what you mean, I humbly request you to explain further, perhaps with examples).

Actually, this goes back to the original question. @Rarebear a lot of times, I find that disagreements stem from different facts. If you can find the correct fact that backs up your statement that the other person didn’t know/consider, you can often convince them (given enough time for it to sink in).

@roundsquare
What I meant by different definitions of logic is just that: One person might define logic to mean what makes sense to, or is logical to, that individual, based upon that person’s experiences, education and/or observations. Someone else might define logic as only some idea which can be proven scientifically. A person on a forum such as this can not assume the right to judge what might be “logical” to another without knowing precisely what knowledge and/or experiences went into forming that “logic”.

Please understand that I have worked and been immersed in a very highly regarded scientific community, and I value the contributions of the scientists, and the sciences, including the medical sciences, and I deeply respect the importance of them in our world. But, what I did experience among those very eminent scientists was a humility and an ability to acknowledge that they could be wrong, and they were very willing to examine the possibilities of fallacies in their thinking, ready to embrace new ideas. Very different from what I experience, for the most part, here.

Perhaps as a result of this exposure, I tend to view some declarative statements which I encounter here with a healthy measure of skepticism.

In my opinion, some things that seem to be proven scientifically don’t seem logical at all. I certainly should be able to have an opinion which might differ from that of the scientific community, and not expect to be browbeaten in a public forum for having that opinion. We all can recall many scientific “theories” which were later determined to be false.

There are many statements of “fact” which some of the individuals here make, which I would argue, but it’s become evident to me that these arguments become bitter and vitriolic. I guess this would explain my reason for engaging in this discussion, because I wish it was more possible to have intelligent and informative discussions here without the nasty and supercilious rebuttals which invariably follow. Perhaps we could all learn and benefit from such exchanges.

I won’t state examples of some of those declarations here, because I don’t choose to engage in more negative dialogue which would surely follow. But, just because someone might be a doctor, or have attained some other educational milestones, I don’t automatically assume that everything he believes is unquestionable.

I have in my family several doctors, and they are by far not the wisest and most knowledgeable people among us. In fact, at times even they have finally learned that their “wisdom” turned out to be very damaging to the people they required to follow it. I suppose we are all aware of many different circumstances when the medical community failed to provide reasonable care to an individual, who was then negatively affected by such mistakes. I guess I am just not in awe of someone who claims superiority based upon medical expertise or training. I am very willing to listen, but I reserve the right to disagree. If I had not trusted my instincts in a couple of cases, despite very strong statements of “fact” from a medical professional, a member of my family would most probably not still be living.

One example I can share here. One morning in the not-too-recent past, I called my child’s pediatric physician to say that she was not holding down her food, she had no fever and no lethargy, and because she kept talking about “the money”, I felt that she may have a coin stuck in her throat. It was logical to me, that her symptoms and behavior might be the result of such an obstruction. Her physician laughed, and told me that this was “medically impossible”, and that I was just a hysterical mother and my daughter obviously had a virus. I should just stop calling him and “ride it out”. This without even examining her. After a day of increasingly fearful feelings about my baby’s welfare, and several more phone calls, I finally called him again in the early evening, and told him I was going to the hospital, and he could meet me there, or refer me to someone who would. He did meet me, and while describing my foolishness, waited for x-rays to prove him right. The x-rays came back, with no evidence of an obstruction to his eyes, and he had begun to again wax eloquent on my stupidity, until one of the technicians rushed in to point out a small sliver of something, at the very bottom of the film, exactly where her windpipe entered her throat. I was very grateful for that technician, who had nothing invested in being “right”, and grateful that the x-ray just happened to barely include the object. They called highly skilled medical professionals, because of how sensitive the procedure was, quickly took her in for emergency surgery, and found and extracted the penny, which reportedly could have killed her if it had tipped even the slightest from the position it was in. This was considered to be so remarkable that it was reported in the newspapers. My baby had this lethal object in her throat all day long, while her doctor postured and demanded that I accept his “medical opinion” over my own instincts. But of course, I never got an admission from the doctor that he had been wrong. I know I am not alone in having this type of experience, and therefore, I believe that it’s wisdom to feel entitled to question anyone, no matter what their credentials might imply.

If, as you state, the belief of an individual will/can cause harm, which can at times be a purely subjective opinion, and as was stated by another individual above, there are institutional policies in place to deal with such circumstances. But I believe that in an environment such as this, it’s not appropriate for a person to badger another for stating his/her point of view after tactfully explaining their differing opinion. Particularly when such badgering involves personal insults and suggestions that the POV of the attacker is superior, incontrovertible and flawless. And besides, as I said before, those tactics are not very effective, are they?

@eden2eve Your doctor is an arrogant prick. I’d find another doctor. And I say that as a doctor who has a lot of experience digging foreign bodies out of people’s esophaguses (esophagi?). I could wax on all night about all the stuff I’ve dug out of people’s intestinal tracks from both sides, but I don’t want to gross everybody out.

Sure, facts and theories can be discounted, and it’s a foolish person who says that there’s no possiblity they might be wrong. My problem is when people push that to another level of relativism and postmodernism, if you will. Reality is not something that is to the eye of the beholder. Reality is real. The tree falls and makes a sound in the forest whether or not you are there to hear it.

@eden2eve
I think you’re confusing “logical” with “intuitively sensible”.
Logic is a well-defined formal system for constructing and relating propositions, which is the same for every human and not open to redefining or reinterpretation, unless the contemporary understanding was incorrect all along.

Sure.

I don’t think it matters how someone arrived at an opinion. A skillful communicator can successfully encourage a person to change their opinion by assisting them in examining their own faulty or erroneous thinking.

@Fyrius

Several definitions of “logic” from Dictionary.com:
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn’t much logic in her move.
5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.
6. Computers . logic circuit.

Not all forms of logic are precise. Fuzzy logic for example is a form of multi-valued logic derived from fuzzy set theory to deal with reasoning that is approximate rather than precise.

@eden2eve
Ah, we’ve arrived at the dictionary stage.

Well, I admit I got hung up on definition 1. Logic proper.
I would like to contend – perhaps stubbornly – that any definition that does not comply with definition 1 is not actually logic, but something else that has acquired the same name through widespread layman misinterpretation, much like the non-scientific definition of theory now seems so far away from the original meaning of that word, without having lost its sciency ring.
But for the present context, I suppose the thread starter had a more lenient definition in mind, so all right, you have a point.

If that definition is what we’re talking about, though, can we please use a different word?
Solely because I care about words and want them to be happy.

I suggest we say rationality or sense instead. That seems to better cover what the thread is about. Can you use rational arguments to talk someone out of a belief that was accepted for irrational reasons?
Different people can very well have different ideas on what is and isn’t rational. Not all such ideas are correct, but there’s room for disagreement and debate.

Some of yesteryear’s irrefutable logic is now classified as BS. But in its day fulfilled the #1 definition of the word.

@rooeytoo That was before there were clearly defines laws of logic, and recognised logical fallacies. It is true that we now reject much of Aristotle’s thought experiments, which were seen as logical for his day, but that is because we now have well defined rules of logic and we can recognise his processes as fallacious.

@eden2eve
First, let me say I’m happy it turned out well for your daughter.

Second it appears we are much closer to agreement than it first appeared. I’m like @Fyrius on this one, I use the word logic to mean something very specific and get very confused (and slightly annoyed) when people use the other definitions, which, I also believe, are perversions of the word.

Third, I agree that it would be nice if we could debate important things in a reasonable way. Its tough to find though, so I tend disregard any personal attacks, etc… and instead look for the meat of what someone is saying and go with that. Doesn’t always work, but its the best way I’ve found. However, when discussing important things, people will get angry. Sometimes you can get past it, sometimes you can’t. If we can find a way to ensure that people don’t make personal attacks or will calmly state their point, we should try it, but otherwise I think its important to be able to deal with them and move past their anger.

Fourth, but we still disagree on some things. Basically, we disagree on at what point we would try to convince someone of something. However, this doesn’t seem like it would cause huge problems as long as we keep an open mind. If we can do that, then we’ll still disagree and argue, but we’ll both end up learning from any exchange.

This debate shows one way people get into fights when discussing things, especially online. We use the word “logic” differently and that, in large part, led to a heated debate. I think its important to keep this in mind when typing up a statement.

When I used the word “logic” in my original question, what I meant was, “arrive with verifiable evidence”. I realize that it’s not a true definition of the word.

Thank you, @Rarebear , @roundsquare and @Fyrius for your replies.

@roundsquare , as to your fourth point, I understand what you are saying and I agree. I think that I just don’t understand the value in being demeaning or critical of another’s views in an attempt to dissuade them from what an individual might believe is their “flawed thinking”. A more tolerant and open dialogue is so much better received, and if the point of the discussion is to influence another in their thinking, how much greater would that possibility be if it was done respectfully. And, I agree, I don’t find the need to prove a point of view more important than the consequence of losing the ear of the person I would like to influence.

Since this question was about how to talk someone out of an idea with which one disagrees, I was attempting to explain why I felt that the OP may have experienced failure in this effort. I am so much more receptive to people who seem to realize that they may not always be right. Having come from the culture I was privileged to enjoy, I was able to experience how much more likely it was for new understanding to be gained when the investigator was very open to the possibility of errors in their thinking. They were in many cases world-class scientists, Nobel Prize winners and eminent in their respective fields of study, but always listening as much they were talking, and they invariably very humbly acknowledged another point of view as being worthy of consideration. I think that’s why they were so successful, both scientifically and socially among their peers and the world at large.

@eden2eve My intent isn’t to talk someone out of an idea with which I disagree. It’s how to talk someone out of a position that is erroneous. I have no problem if someone wants to disagree with me, say, on economic policy. I think that both Friedman and Keynes both have valid points. I’ll debate them, but I won’t say they are “wrong.”

It’s a completely different story for me if someone wants to maintain and teach a belief that the world is 6000 years old.

@FireMadeFlesh – a more cynical individual than myself of course, would point out that it is very easy to change the “law” to suit current ideas.

@rooeytoo
Not this sort of law. The laws of logic are as rigid as those of gravity. They can be misunderstood, but they don’t change.

I also doubt you could adapt logic to suit a political agenda. It’s too elementary. What applications could such forgery have?
Would you prove there were nukes in Iraq by saying that “if nukes then invasion” is equivalent to “if invasion then nukes” and there was an invasion? I don’t think anyone is going to fall for that.

@Rarebear
“It’s a completely different story for me if someone wants to maintain and teach a belief that the world is 6000 years old.”

Why? I understand why you might disagree with this belief, but I’m not sure why you feel such a strong need to convince a person of the error in their thinking in the above example. That almost seems patronizing, as if others can’t be trusted to sample many different concepts, then select those which are most in keeping with their own values and ways of thinking. Even if you are speaking about a teaching scenario, do you understand that many of us are forced to allow our children to be taught what we feel are incorrect principles, and have to “undo the damage” at home? That’s not the end of the world, and we roll with it.

Previously you said that you feel an obligation to correct people when you construe their beliefs to be dangerous. Even then, I disagree as to your moral responsibility, but let’s assume that you are somehow morally obligated in such a scenario. That being said, I can’t see how this belief, which you mentioned above, might be dangerous to anyone, so why the passion about changing it?

I feel no passion to change your beliefs, even though, perhaps surprisingly to you, I feel as convinced that I am right as you obviously do. I can’t understand the need you seem to have to make others’ opinions mimic your own. I find it interesting discussing the beliefs of others in an environment like this, but I’m very happy to accept their point of view as something that’s theirs by right, and just find that I benefit from learning more about how other people believe and what may have brought them to these perceptions. That gives me an opportunity to explore my own, and then to accept or discard those which I had previously deemed to be correct.

Most of us haven’t gained our ideas frivolously, and I’d wager that extensive thought and evaluation has gone into most individual’s set of beliefs, not unlike yours. We aren’t necessarily less intelligent, nor less highly educated. Thanks for sharing yours, but please don’t worry so much about those of us who find a different set of beliefs to be more appropriate for our lives.

I don’t believe that I proselytize, or try to put any undue pressure on someone to believe as I do. I’m quite happy, I’m not hurting anyone, and I have nothing invested in being “right”. Not everyone is as sure as you seem to be about what positions are “erroneous”. But one thing I do know for sure, you aren’t always “right”.

@eden2eve I don’t just “disagree with the belief” that the world is 6000 years old. That belief is WRONG. Pure and simple. You want to hear fighting words? People who try to teach their children that the world is 6000 years old to me is tantamount to stupidity at best and intellectual child abuse at worst. Now thems fighting words.

Of course I’m not always right. But in situations like this, I am right. The world is not 6000 years old. If you’d like to debate that fact I’d be delighted.

Let me restate what I wrote with a different example, as you picked up only on the second half of my point. I don’t go to the mat on every issue I believe in. For example. I believe that a society should ensure universal health insurance for every one of its members. I do NOT believe that that’s the role of a centralized government, nor do I believe that an unregulated private market is also the answer. That gets me into trouble with both my Libertarian and my Single Payer friends, but I don’t say they’re wrong when I debate them, because there is no single right way.

But, if someone want to start saying that homeopathy is a valid cure for cancer, or state that someone can cure asthma with a chiropractic adjustment, or that accupuncture will treat diabetes, I will tell them that they are wrong and I will doggedly pursue the point until they either prove it, or they admit that they’re wrong. (Or they degenerate into calling me names, as has happened several times)

@Rarebear

I don’t have an opinion on the age of the earth. I don’t care. So no, I won’t be debating that with you. In fact, I won’t debate anything with you. Debate may be your thing, but it’s not mine. I’m sufficiently satisfied with my current beliefs, and I have no desire nor need to change yours. I know you are wrong about certain things, and that’s just fine. Your current methods in a debate would never be effective in any difference we might have. And after some observation, I don’t have sufficient respect for your reasoning abilities to be influenced by what you may say.

Your original question was how to logically talk someone out of a belief that they arrived at without logic. I will restate my answer to you. If you really want to talk someone out of a belief they have, you will do far better to not be patronizing, supercilious, nor insult their intelligence or their beliefs. You’re shooting yourself in the foot every time you do this. And you may at some time in your life be embarrassed to finally discover that you were not as RIGHT as you supposed.

@eden2eve Can I just confirm? If we make sure our discussions (with each other and others) are respectful, then we’ll be fine? (I’m confirming because this is the kind of conclusion that makes me happy).

Either way, I think it makes sense to consider different kinds of beliefs and when we’d convince someone of something. I’ll make some categories below, but they are incomplete, fluid and flexible.

1) Religion: I have no idea what to believe here so if I find someone open to discussion, I will get into it. If I feel the discussion is getting people emotional/angry and it can’t be salvaged, I’ll switch to talking about cookies or whatever.

2) Politics/Economics: I consider these more important than religion, but basically I follow the same policy as above. Especially with politics, because people get really riled up and are unlikely to change anyway, I will only debate this with people who I know like debating.

3) Medicine/Health: Here I am more persistent. But this needs sub categories:
a) I’ve seen other instances such as yours where I think it makes more sense to trust non-medical people. Its got more to do with knowing the person as an individual.
b) In other cases though, I would think its important to push someone to do what the doctor says. Hypothetically, if some kid has cancer and their parents won’t take them to the doctor, instead opting for some other sort of medicine, I will intervent. At this point, respecting someone’s beliefs will take a distant second to the kid’s welfare.

If you take a look at the above, you see that I base my actions on the consequences of the other person’s belief.

@eden2eve You may not care about the age of the Earth—you’re the one who challenged me on the point remember. But I’ll bet you care about whether your physician is practicing good evidenced based medicine.

@eden2eve and others.. the only reason bad ideas are promulgated is because people who know better either refuse or are unable to share what they know.

It would be great if every great idea was also a perfectly correct idea. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case. The only way to discover how un-great an idea can be is to examine it, sometimes that means trying it out and observing the the ramifications.

Jesus had a parable about this. He said that trees that produce bad fruit should be cut down and thrown into the Also, when explaining why he spoke in parables and why he performed miracles he explained: “So that you would believe.”

So, jesus was an advocate of evidence based reasoning as well as an advocate of conversion.

@janbb I got caught up in the discussion with eden, so I’m just looking back and I saw your book recommendation. Thanks for that. I’ll check it out.

@janbb You also mention Thomas Aquinas. I’ve heard people quote his belief that faith should supersede reason. I obviously disagree with him, but I don’t think that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Two of my best friends are devout Christians, both physicians, and both adhere to rigid scientific principles. There are also several prominent scientists, Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and Pamela Gay to name three, who are Christians and adhere to rigid scientific reasoning.

@bolwerk who wrote: “Logic has severe limits. Perceptions can easily be false (and often aren’t falsifiable), but conclusions based on those perceptions can be logical. This is probably more where problems with irrationality lie.”

This is an interesting point. I just got done listening to a podcast by James Randi and D.J. Grothe about the intersection of science and magic. Magicians make their living on deception and false perceptions. People can (and do) come to the conclusion that it’s truly “magic.” But that doesn’t mean that it really is magic. But it’s funny, even when people are told, “This is a trick”, many will still believe it.

@Fyrius Your post above that starts “On proselytizing”. (I didn’t want to cut and paste the whole thing here). That’s in essence, what I try to do.

@ninjacolin
I agree. Christ was an advocate of “evidence based reasoning”, but in His case the evidence was always anecdotal, certainly not published in “peer reviewed journals”, which certainly would not fly in these circles.

Christ also said on more than one occasion, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” The most important reason He spoke in parables was because He wanted to be clear to only those who were enlightened enough to understand. In other words, not closed-minded people. This will explain why I choose not to participate in discussions which I already know will be nasty and insulting, because I would rather not waste my time on such discussions, when I’ve been sufficiently exposed to certain individuals to know that they seem to know no other ways of defending their positions. They don’t want to be informed, they want to be right.

Please read the last paragraph in the next-to-last post by the OP. This will exactly describe what their expectations and methodology are.
When one is dealing with a reasonable individual, sharing what one knows is a great way to learn, and a great way to teach others. In an ideal world, this would give people who have disparate ideas a chance to respectfully express themselves, of course with the possibility of conversion, as you stated. However, this is not an ideal world, and I’ve observed many such conversations among certain individuals degenerate into ad hominem attacks and mud slinging.

The point of this question appeared to be in order to ask how the OP could be more effective in using logic to convince people who ”arrived at the belief without logic”. The question is flame baiting. How can the OP know how any individual came to their beliefs? That is simply derogatory and insulting!

Donald Rumsfield, although far from my favorite public figure, made an interesting statement: ”. . .But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.” This was, IMHO, beautifully stated and profound. It’s a concept of “decision theory”, and I think that too frequently in an environment such as this, it can be critically important. There can be things that a person has no conception about, and to try to explain those things to certain types of people is not possible.

@eden2eve Nice answer. To a couple of your points. First, I can’t comment on the Christ statements as I’m an atheist Jew, but I understand the sentiment .

But this statement. “They don’t want to be informed, they want to be right.” I assume you’re talking about me, although I could be wrong. To wit: I am willing to have my beliefs changed. For example, if someone can prove to me that homeopathy is a valid medical treatment, I’m willing to look at the evidence. One of the things I’ve learned being a physician and a scientist is that evidence changes.

“Please read the last paragraph in the next-to-last post by the OP.” Which paragraph was that? I was writing a lot as you were writing.

“The question is flame baiting.” Point taken. I agree (but it did generate an interesting discussion). The wording of the question was actually taken from an interview I was listening to late one evening on a Point of Inquiry podcast. I can’t take credit for it.

“But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know” Of course. But we also shouldn’t act on things we know nothing about as if we do know something about them.

@Rarebear you dont’ have to be theistic to know how the story goes, it’s written down in a book. :) And I agree with you, that was a nice post by eden2eve. Somethings seem a little odd to me though..

@eden2eve “Christ was an advocate of “evidence based reasoning”, but in His case the evidence was always anecdotal, certainly not published in “peer reviewed journals”, which certainly would not fly in these circles.”

Hmm.. I think all evidence is anecdotal.. isn’t it? Even in those circles.

@eden2eve “In an ideal world, this would give people who have disparate ideas a chance to respectfully express themselves, of course with the possibility of conversion, as you stated. However, this is not an ideal world, and I’ve observed many such conversations among certain individuals degenerate into ad hominem attacks and mud slinging.”

If they are mud slingings they likely aren’t conversions, they may intend to attack a perceived hostile instead. The comedic slings are interesting. I’d say they function like cheer leaders for the general effort of overcoming the hostile opinion. They bolster and give joy to the converted while ad hominemly falaciousizing all over the place as far as the actual debate is concerned. My guess is that ridicule is somehow important for the teams’ sanity while wagging war. At the very least, it seems to succinctly demonstrate the differences of opinion that we’re waging war about..

The rest of the time I think people are just ignorant, as you’ve been mentioning, about the commitment involved in the game of contrasting opinions. Sometimes they think an attack is the same as debating. Not being able to recognize the difference they shoot more and more arrows hoping that it will somehow result in a group hug.

But yea, I see what you mean if it’s the ridicule stuff you don’t care for!

For some questions there might be no answers with verifiable evidence. Quantum laws allow something to pop out of nothing, but what about the ultimate law allowing quantum laws themselves to pop out of nothing? How can we explain the origin of natural laws? I think we can’t, at least not with absolute certainty.

To me it’s very logical to admit that we don’t know and that there might be stuff we will never know about for sure. To me it is illogical to believe that everything is explicable. Therefore atheists should be very careful and avoid ridicule especially when believers arrive at their beliefs using logic.

No. It’s up to them to hit rock bottom and realize it for themselves.