"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 24 May 2005 21:45:53 GMT, "Coby Beck"
Yes, this all make perfect sense. I guess the deeper philisophical
question
here is how to provide a serious and thoughtful rebuttal to a shallow and
ridiculous claim.

I think a shallow and ridiculous claim cannot be dealt with the same
way in circumstances where 'reason is king' is acknowledged, as it can
in circumstances where that is not the case. In the former case
rebuttal would likely center on the claim itself, the assumptions that
underlies it, and its implications.

In the latter case the strategy would likely have to be completely
different, the weight being put on discreditation of the claim by any
effective means, with no options taken off the table, rather than
through strictly rational rebuttal. A thoroughly scientifically minded
person would not be very good at this.

One qualification to this: I think that motive is an essential element, and
the motive of whomever puts forward the argument is actually more critical
in terms of the best response tactic than is the quality of the argument.
The "weather vs climate" fallacy can actually be offered up sincerely by
naive rather than manipulative people.

I think one of the biggest challenges scientist face in dealing with lay
people is determining what is obvious or not and what points can be taken
for granted. Being wrong on these counts can lead to misinterpretation of
questions or confusions.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")