I think a lot of people like this style of thinking. I notice the approach pop up in many different contexts. I might be in the process of explaining a new idea or thought to someone and I’ll hear in response – well, what about this? The really clever ones will continue on and ask... and what about that? And usually, I’ll think about this (or even that) and conclude – you know what, you are right, this is a counter-example to my hypothesis!
And so I slink back to the proverbial drawing board and ask myself - what next? As science goes, I would need to return to the lab and come up with a new idea. But in real life, I usually just walk on. This isn’t because of my self-belief or my sense of superiority or even my immense stubborn insistence on always being right (hold your counter-examples, reader) – I think this is because most of what I talk about isn’t very scientific. I think what most people talk about isn’t very scientific. And yet, I often find myself held to the lofty standards of the scientific method (and observe the same phenomenon in even the most casual conversations among others).
I’m not really complaining, reader, of course not. I’m honored, in fact, when someone considers my scattered ranting and raving as the equivalent of a well-honed null hypothesis. And it makes sense that even the most casual conversation is littered with over-application of the counter-example. The scientific method isn’t just some thing taught in school – it is a simple application of basic logic. I rail against many things, reader, but basic logic isn’t one of them.
The problem is that an automatic instinct to refute a new idea might become an obstacle to understanding a new idea. These are two sides of the same coin to me – a refuted idea is similar to a fully understood idea in how neither one requires additional comprehension or brainpower. The former is obviously a much easier approach. But how many counter-examples must be explained away before the idea is understood?
Of course, this presents the true problem with the casual pseudo-science we are bombarded with (or bombard others with, really) on a daily basis – since the starting idea isn’t particularly scientific, the attempts to apply the scientific method will create skewed results. To put it another way, I think the instinct to refute only reveals that a decision about the idea has already been made. In a casual conversation that turns on a pseudo-scientific point, it really isn’t that hard to overload the other with endless counter-examples. And the other can refute these points, or not, but in the end it really doesn’t matter because no one is budging from their initial position since the initial position isn’t defined well enough to budge from.
I think the best approach to these situations is to demand detailed explanation of the idea. If someone like me comes around and says something like – you know, in the future I bet overweight people will think of weight gain as an allergic reaction to certain foods – then I would suggest asking me countless questions until I fully explained myself. And I’m not talking about assumption-laden questions that I could dismiss with yes-no responses; I’m talking real questions like – how did you come up with that? – or – why do you believe in this? – or – surely, you didn’t waste the last week coming up with this idea (1)?
Eventually, what will happen is one of two things. One possibility is that my nonsensical point will crumble under the weight of my own explanation. This is the reason to ask those open-ended ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions (can you describe… is also a good opener for such a question) – by challenging the speaker to sort out all the little details and overlooked inconsistencies, the possibility of the speaker refuting his or her own point becomes much more likely.
The second possibility is in a way even better – you might help the speaker build the argument to such a place that the point is essentially scientific. This might not sound so good right away, of course, but remember – if the point is scientific, all it takes is one counter-example to bring the whole house down.
Ask carefully, skeptical reader.
Thanks for reading.
Tim
Footnotes / analysis of my questionable logic
0. I know, I’m no scientist...
When presented with a new idea you do not understand, there are two options. If you try to understand it, you might be in for a long mental struggle. If you instead try to refute it, you might no longer need to understand the idea since if you successfully discredit the idea, it won't matter much whether you understand it or not. I think this is another good explanation for why people immediately try to discredit new ideas.
Again, when the two options are understanding or discrediting, it's important to remember how the latter is much easier – all you need is a counter example! Most people pass off presenting counter-examples as a way of ‘trying to understand’ - this isn’t the same thing! There is a fine line between trying to understand an idea versus trying to refute it.
You could come the other way, dear reader, and point out the realities of calories and nutritionists. You could even frame it in question form – how come you think this when you know most allergic reactions don’t lead to permanent physical changes? Don’t fool yourself, reader, into thinking such a retort is an example of an open question because open question do not have any built-in assumptions (in the above, the assumptions is revealed by the phrase '...when you know...').
