Avoid Non-arguments

Many have had the experience where, someone posts 4 long scientific or academic articles about an issue and 5 minutes later, someone says he or she read it all and that that person disagrees. That's all good and well, and you expect a credible refutation that follows the scientific methodology. A sliver of empirical proof against a claim. But instead, the person gives you arguments that were all already tackled in those articles, oblivious to the fact that the points have already been given the necessary scrutiny and attention debunking their claims. Then it dawns on you - obviously, the person didn't do the research or reading and just skimmed through a few lines.

This is when the mind goes "meh! Try to lie better."

There's a saying by George Carlin which was probably influenced by Mark Twain, “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience”.

I often wondered at what the "experience" was that they would beat you with. Surely, I thought, experience ought to teach you lessons that are progressive and problem solving. But I've learned quite recently that it is the experience of arguing with nothing more than mere conjecture, as a basis for anything, that they beat you with - beat you in their minds at least.

Such people will dismiss every piece of evidence, fact or study that you throw at them and beat you down with ignorant and uneducated conjectural arguments. In their mind they are making a point, and that's all that matters to them. It doesn't matter if you post academic literature or mention the scientific consensus, they won't even look at it. They'll just argue with what they think they know and what they think is true and that's that.

Such people will use ancient, rather than contemporary and updated, knowledge and they will beat your arguments with utter ignorance. In the process of it, they will reject the label of being ignorant, view common-sense as proper-sense and claim that the fact-providing party is closed-minded or the one who is ignorant for rejecting the conjectural claims.

"Being open-minded doesn’t mean you have to accept every crazy hypothesis coming your way. It means being open to new information, and allowing for the possibility that your existing beliefs are wrong. If a new idea has no merit and/or contradicts much of the established knowledge, it’s perfectly reasonable to reject it. In fact, it would be close-minded not to reject it."

But what is established knowledge?

Established knowledge means the scientific consensus on a topic. According to terminology, a "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity."

To reject or attempt to refute the scientific consensus without the necessary empirical evidence is a non-argument and does not deserve any attention, nor does it stand as a credible argument in any situation. Richard Dawkins summed it up quite well when he stated why he would not debate with anti-science advocates; "They want to be seen on a platform with a real scientist, because that conveys the idea that here is a genuine argument between scientists," Dawkins continued. "They may not win the argument – in fact, they will not win the argument, but it makes it look like there really is an argument to be had."

This was in response to Creationists who were trying to schedule a debate, but the statement has wisdom and merit within it. Why degrade oneself by arguing with illogical and unscientific, closed-minded positions? Arguing with immature positions is a waste of time and energy. One needs to find their focus on the truth rather than the denial without proof.

“It takes courage to grow up and become who you really are.” - E.E. Cummings (Playwright and poet, Tulips and Chimneys)

I am reminded of a conversation with my mother several years ago. While watching hysterical drama unfolding on the news, I asked her why stupid people were incapable or lazy to comprehend simple logic that would otherwise have prevented or fixed problems in society. She responded by telling me that; "...it is because they are stupid that they do not and cannot understand logic.".

The mind is a peculiar thing, capable of great feats of genius processing, but also terribly malleable to experience that Classical and Operant Conditioning would be able to wire the brain to more base and simpletonic standards of lesser quality. In Psychology, we learn that youthful experiences and genetics play a big role. Are we destined as a species to destroy ourselves through mythological beliefs and poor politics? Or will we overcome our weaknesses and finally have the greater majority of our civilization open its eyes through the best fool-proofing system mankind has ever developed - Science?

To earn our place among the stars, mankind needs to grow up. We would need to reject and let go of the plague of ideas that limit us in detriment. We will need to focus on what's ahead while mindful of the past lessons. We can, but will we, in majority, find the will and sense to do so? Only the future will tell.