Is this wrong? (Debate tactics)

[Nimos]

I occasionally watch some of these atheist call-in shows, where primarily religious people can call them and have a chat.

Not all the hosts are equally good I think, but one thing I have noticed when listening to them is often that the hosts will refer to evolution or scientific things to back up what they are saying, which is perfectly fine.

Yet, very often when a caller calls in and uses, for instance, stuff they have read about quantum mechanics and cite these as being in support of what they are saying, the usual response from the hosts is that they are not physicists or educated in quantum mechanics or whatever this caller might refer to and that it is beyond their understanding and therefore seem to throw away/ignore their argument as if it is not valid and then they start talking about other things and in many cases jump to the use of fallacies, rather than simply saying that they don't have the knowledge to argue against that and therefore the caller might be right.

An example of that could be: "Do you think that 95% of the physicists are wrong and that you know it better than them? Do you have a degree in physics? etc."

Very often when the tables are turned some of the hosts will behave very arrogantly and tell them to go learn about evolution etc.

So would like to hear people's opinions about this, because couldn't the caller use the same argument or tactic, simply saying that they don't know about evolution and therefore "ignore" the host's arguments in the same way as they do it, or simply tell them to go read the studies instead, the same way as they want them to do?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I occasionally watch some of these atheist call-in shows, where primarily religious people can call them and have a chat.

Not all the hosts are equally good I think, but one thing I have noticed when listening to them is often that the hosts will refer to evolution or scientific things to back up what they are saying, which is perfectly fine.

Yet, very often when a caller calls in and uses, for instance, stuff they have read about quantum mechanics and cite these as being in support of what they are saying, the usual response from the hosts is that they are not physicists or educated in quantum mechanics or whatever this caller might refer to and that it is beyond their understanding and therefore seem to throw away/ignore their argument as if it is not valid and then they start talking about other things and in many cases jump to the use of fallacies, rather than simply saying that they don't have the knowledge to argue against that and therefore the caller might be right.

An example of that could be: "Do you think that 95% of the physicists are wrong and that you know it better than them? Do you have a degree in physics? etc."

Very often when the tables are turned some of the hosts will behave very arrogantly and tell them to go learn about evolution etc.

So would like to hear people's opinions about this, because couldn't the caller use the same argument or tactic, simply saying that they don't know about evolution and therefore "ignore" the host's arguments in the same way as they do it, or simply tell them to go read the studies instead, the same way as they want them to do?

It gets ridiculous when they actually start citing the experts on the matter the real scientists , then they get called and accused of appealing to authority which shows the desperation of theists whenever they get backed into a corner in a debate.

I think atheists should be a bit above all that and have decorum and professionalism on such shows. Emotion is a hallmark of theists in their responses and atheists ought to remain calm and reply with intelligence and rationality in their converso , although granted, a little off the wall Aron Ra type comment once in awhile likely wouldn't hurt in the long run just as long as it isn't constant.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Very often when the tables are turned some of the hosts will behave very arrogantly and tell them to go learn about evolution etc.

I suspect that the statement above is biased and flawed. I also suspect that, to quote the OP,

"very often when a caller calls in and uses, for instance, stuff they have read about quantum mechanics and cite these as being in support of what they are saying,"​

​

he or she is cherry-picking some garbage site like Answers in Genesis and is rehashing apologetic nonsense that's been addressed as nauseam. And, finally, what you characterize as "behav[ing] very arrogantly" is actually expressing frustration and impatience with willful ignorance.

 

[Nimos]

I suspect that the statement above is biased and flawed. I also suspect that, to quote the OP,

"very often when a caller calls in and uses, for instance, stuff they have read about quantum mechanics and cite these as being in support of what they are saying,"​

​

he or she is cherry-picking some garbage site like Answers in Genesis and is rehashing apologetic nonsense that's been addressed as nauseam. And, finally, what you characterize as "behav[ing] very arrogantly" is actually expressing frustration and impatience with willful ignorance.

Im cherry picking? or who are you referring to?

 

[LuisDantas]

So would like to hear people's opinions about this, because couldn't the caller use the same argument or tactic, simply saying that they don't know about evolution and therefore "ignore" the host's arguments in the same way as they do it, or simply tell them to go read the studies instead, the same way as they want them to do?

It is a mistake to be too lenient with people who think that they are criticizing evolution.

Most of that so-called criticism is very impressive for how uninformed it is, and nothing else.

 

[Nimos]

It gets ridiculous when they actually start citing the experts on the matter the real scientists , then they get called and accused of appealing to authority which shows the desperation of theists whenever they get backed into a corner in a debate.

I think atheists should be a bit above all that and have decorum and professionalism on such shows. Emotion is a hallmark of theists in their responses and atheists ought to remain calm and reply with intelligence and rationality in their converso , although granted, a little off the wall Aron Ra type comment once in awhile likely wouldn't hurt in the long run just as long as it isn't constant.

We all appeal to authorities and there is nothing wrong with that.

Also, not all the people that call in are friendly, there are a lot of idiots calling.

My point is simply that if neither the hosts nor the caller knows about a given field of science, maybe the best option from the hosts is simply to say that they can't argue against it, given their limited knowledge. Also, they are in a call-in show, where they don't have time to read sources/papers etc.

 

[LuisDantas]

We all appeal to authorities and there is nothing wrong with that.

Also, not all the people that call in are friendly, there are a lot of idiots calling.

My point is simply that if neither the hosts nor the caller knows about a given field of science, maybe the best option from the hosts is simply to say that they can't argue against it, given their limited knowledge. Also, they are in a call-in show, where they don't have time to read sources/papers etc.

That is probably fair regarding Quantum Mechanics. But evolution is a whole different beast.

Critics of atheism really have no reason nor justification for even bringing up that subject - and that has been true for decades already.

It is quite justified to be direct and terse when some so-called Creationist poses himself as some form of critic of atheism.

 

[Nimos]

It is a mistake to be too lenient with people who think that they are criticizing evolution.

Most of that so-called criticism is very impressive for how uninformed it is, and nothing else.

I agree, im not talking about anything special.

If you and I talked about cars and none of us knew anything about them, but were citing "papers" about cars, it would be nearly impossible for us to reach an agreement about what is right or wrong.

Some of the hosts are biologists so surely they can talk about it as an expert. But when you admit that you don't know a given field, there is no reason to start appealing to authorities, if you don't know the papers or information the other person is referring to.

 

[Stevicus]

So would like to hear people's opinions about this, because couldn't the caller use the same argument or tactic, simply saying that they don't know about evolution and therefore "ignore" the host's arguments in the same way as they do it, or simply tell them to go read the studies instead, the same way as they want them to do?

Sure, they could do that, and in fact, there are quite a number of people who do precisely that. They reject the scientific experts and do their own thing. It's a free country; they can do that. I guess it could be a problem if their numbers reach a critical mass to the point where it could change the political landscape.

 

[Kenny]

Very often when the tables are turned some of the hosts will behave very arrogantly and tell them to go learn about evolution etc.

This has been used even on this forum. They don’t address the issue… they simply say “go learn”. It is like when I use to say “Everyone interprets the Bible differently” as a non-Christian - when I didn’t know what to say.

 

[LuisDantas]

Some of the hosts are biologists so surely they can talk about it as an expert. But when you admit that you don't know a given field, there is no reason to start appealing to authorities, if you don't know the papers or information the other person is referring to.

We are way beyond that point, though. There is no need - or even a good reason - to be a biologist when calling the fallacies of Creationists.

 

[Nimos]

We are way beyond that point, though. There is no need - or even a good reason - to be a biologist when calling the fallacies of Creationists.

I don't care about evolution, it's not about that. It's more the principle of how to debate.

So imagine you had a debate with Neil deGrasse Tyson about quantum mechanics. And the first thing you say is "I don't know anything about quantum mechanics", then your opinion is irrelevant, it is also irrelevant what you believe he knows and doesn't know, given you have already stated that you don't know anything about it. So your answer to what he is saying should be, that "you don't have the knowledge to argue against what he is saying, and that he would have to speak with someone else." rather than start appealing to authorities, or whether he is one or the other thing.

Does that make sense?

 

[Soandso]

Quantum physics isn't just something someone can pick one or two things from and bring up in a debate - at least bring it up and be taken seriously. It's quantum physics! Like... How is someone supposed to respond to that? It's like going to the bar while folks there are talking about sports then bringing up why baseball is a superior sport while citing calculus. I mean... You can do that, but no one will take you seriously

 

[Nimos]

Quantum physics isn't just something someone can pick one or two things from and bring up in a debate - at least bring it up and be taken seriously. It's quantum physics! Like... How is someone supposed to respond to that? It's like going to the bar while folks there are talking about sports then bringing up why baseball is a superior sport while citing calculus. I mean... You can do that, but no one will take you seriously

You could easily respond to it if you had a background in quantum mechanics or you simply knew something about it because you read about it. Obviously, if you do not consider yourself an expert in it you will eventually reach a point where you have to admit that you have reached the end of your knowledge.

But my point is that we all appeal to authorities, im not a biologist, physicist etc. yet I have limited knowledge about these topics, but if someone starts citing quantum mechanics papers that are far beyond what I know and I admit that I knew nothing about it, then I wouldn't start claiming that the person is wrong, simply that they would have to ask someone that knows about quantum mechanics because I can't tell whether they are correct or not, or whether the misunderstood something etc.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't care about evolution, it's not about that. It's more the principle of how to debate.

And that is the thing. In this day and age it is not proper to debate about biological evolution, let alone the out-of-the-left-field, undue "extrapolations" of it to fields such as cosmology. Particularly if a god is invoked for the purpose.

It is a matter of establishing the boundaries of what is worth of one's time and attention.

So imagine you had a debate with Neil deGrasse Tyson about quantum mechanics. And the first thing you say is "I don't know anything about quantum mechanics", then your opinion is irrelevant, it is also irrelevant what you believe he knows and doesn't know, given you have already stated that you don't know anything about it. So your answer to what he is saying should be, that "you don't have the knowledge to argue against what he is saying, and that he would have to speak with someone else." rather than start appealing to authorities, or whether he is one or the other thing.

Does that make sense?

Not really. I am not seeing the parallel.

Then again, I can't picture myself debating Quantum Mechanics (or refusing to, as appears to be the case) with deGrasse Tyson - or anyone really - because I am indeed ignorant on the subject matter. Why waste our time?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I occasionally watch some of these atheist call-in shows, where primarily religious people can call them and have a chat.

Not all the hosts are equally good I think, but one thing I have noticed when listening to them is often that the hosts will refer to evolution or scientific things to back up what they are saying, which is perfectly fine.

Yet, very often when a caller calls in and uses, for instance, stuff they have read about quantum mechanics and cite these as being in support of what they are saying, the usual response from the hosts is that they are not physicists or educated in quantum mechanics or whatever this caller might refer to and that it is beyond their understanding and therefore seem to throw away/ignore their argument as if it is not valid and then they start talking about other things and in many cases jump to the use of fallacies, rather than simply saying that they don't have the knowledge to argue against that and therefore the caller might be right.

An example of that could be: "Do you think that 95% of the physicists are wrong and that you know it better than them? Do you have a degree in physics? etc."

Very often when the tables are turned some of the hosts will behave very arrogantly and tell them to go learn about evolution etc.

So would like to hear people's opinions about this, because couldn't the caller use the same argument or tactic, simply saying that they don't know about evolution and therefore "ignore" the host's arguments in the same way as they do it, or simply tell them to go read the studies instead, the same way as they want them to do?

I think this is a reasonable response to a Gish Gallop: shut it down quickly and call it out for what it is.

I think the hosts are probably watching out for people who just want to use their show as a soapbox rather than engaging in real debate, so they shut these tactics down quickly.

I also think that the response you suggest could sound quite a bit like the Courtier's Reply, so I would expect an atheist call-in show to avoid this approach.

 

[bobhikes]

I occasionally watch some of these atheist call-in shows, where primarily religious people can call them and have a chat.

Not all the hosts are equally good I think, but one thing I have noticed when listening to them is often that the hosts will refer to evolution or scientific things to back up what they are saying, which is perfectly fine.

Yet, very often when a caller calls in and uses, for instance, stuff they have read about quantum mechanics and cite these as being in support of what they are saying, the usual response from the hosts is that they are not physicists or educated in quantum mechanics or whatever this caller might refer to and that it is beyond their understanding and therefore seem to throw away/ignore their argument as if it is not valid and then they start talking about other things and in many cases jump to the use of fallacies, rather than simply saying that they don't have the knowledge to argue against that and therefore the caller might be right.

An example of that could be: "Do you think that 95% of the physicists are wrong and that you know it better than them? Do you have a degree in physics? etc."

Very often when the tables are turned some of the hosts will behave very arrogantly and tell them to go learn about evolution etc.

So would like to hear people's opinions about this, because couldn't the caller use the same argument or tactic, simply saying that they don't know about evolution and therefore "ignore" the host's arguments in the same way as they do it, or simply tell them to go read the studies instead, the same way as they want them to do?

As to debating the structure of the debate should be set up before hand and anything in that structure should be allowed.

As to phone in's, It is best practice to admit you have no knowledge on the subject they bring up and then return to the debate structure. A debate can always be done on the new subject in the future with people who actually have the knowledge necessary.

 

[Nimos]

As to debating the structure of the debate should be set up before hand and anything in that structure should be allowed.

As to phone in's, It is best practice to admit you have no knowledge on the subject they bring up and then return to the debate structure. A debate can always be done on the new subject in the future with people who actually have the knowledge necessary.

Get the impression that you are the only one who actually understood what I was talking about

And I completely agree with you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Im cherry picking? or who are you referring to?

Let's see if I can help. I'm going to quote my post below, and highlight what I believe to be relevant ...

I suspect that the statement above is biased and flawed. I also suspect that, to quote the OP,

"very often when a caller calls in and uses, for instance, stuff they have read about quantum mechanics and cite these as being in support of what they are saying,"​

​

he or she is cherry-picking some garbage site like Answers in Genesis and is rehashing apologetic nonsense that's been addressed as nauseam. And, finally, what you characterize as "behav[ing] very arrogantly" is actually expressing frustration and impatience with willful ignorance.

Let me know if you need more clarification.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This has been used even on this forum. They don’t address the issue… they simply say “go learn”. It is like when I use to say “Everyone interprets the Bible differently” as a non-Christian - when I didn’t know what to say.

I think the "go learn" may be due to frustration with the various creationists that have no knowledge and ignore corrections and even run away from offers to help them to learn the basics.

After a while one is tempted to just yell at people posting attempting to use arrogant ignorance as a weapon in a debate. When one cannot debate properly about concepts that do not disprove God such as evolution what hope for an honest debate is there when it comes to concepts that do refute such a being?