On Thu, 26 May 2005 20:05:42 GMT, "Coby Beck"
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
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.

Surely motive is an essential element. However -- it is hard if not
impossible to gauge motives on a medium like this. What one can
gauge is whether it is possible to engage the other person in a
meaningful dialog. That should IMO in all cases be attempted.
Dialog is a deadly weapon against manipulation, if it succeeds,
manipulation will have to cease. But, if it sorely fails, one should
be willing to change tack, to use language in a different mode, as a
stick or a whip, rather than a tool for discourse. Importantly, if it
comes to that, it must be done with cold deliberation rather than
out of frustration and anger.

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.

Yes, that is true, but if a dialog can be got going, the frailties of
language, the inevitable misinterpretations and language use confusion
should not pose insurmountable problems.