Dick McGrath, professor of theology at Thomas More College and founding member of ART, talked about how skeptics can improve the effectiveness of their attempts to influence others. He drew his suggestions from decades of experience trying to bring undergraduates to value clear thinking and correct conclusions and observing his own and other skeptics' arguments succeed or fall flat.
Dick has observed that many skeptics buttress their arguments with inaccurate or undocumented, and even with fabricated quotations. When these are discovered by the opponent, the argument is seriously undermined. A similar problem has turned up in our Skeptical Blurbs. Most of these are loaded with citations from Skeptical Inquirer articles and almost nothing else. As useful as this journal is as a source of information, our arguments would be stronger if we drew from a broader base of thought.
Another error skeptics make is ignoring the historical or cultural context of the issue they are debating. Arguing with creationists over whether Genesis is an accurate rendition of history is pointless. Biblical scholars agree it is not history, but myth. Accepting creationists' views on Genesis as history loses the argument before it starts.
Enlarging arguments beyond what the facts warrant is another sure way to destroy your influence. Dr Kübler-Ross was highly regarded for her early work in the psychology of dying. She later lost the respect of the scientific community when she pushed her arguments beyond her observations and claimed that near death experiences are a window into a reality beyond death.
Another pitfall is to fail to understand the world view of your opponent. Skeptics, like everyone else, base their arguments on their own world view and then wonder why others don't immediately adopt their opinions. It's important to understand that people believe in all sorts of things which may be grossly incompatible with a scientific view of the world. Whacking away at such a person with scientific arguments will produce only resistance. Imagine the difference in world view between those who believe that Mary has appeared to the faithful at Lourdes and those who believe that no such thing could happen. Understanding the cultural, religious, economic, and historical contexts in which belief in apparitions arises is an essential underpinning for an effective skeptical argument.
Another trap skeptics fall into is explaining unusual events by guesswork. Nineteenth century skeptics made fools out of themselves trying to explain the biblical story of Jesus and the loaves and fishes. Intent on disproving any miraculous multiplication of food, the skeptics came up with a hodgepodge explanation based on the guess that some in the crowd had brought food with them, and were inspired by Jesus' talk to share what they had brought, thus producing food for everyone. Mere guesswork is not going to convince anyone.
In their rush to convince others, skeptics sometimes put more weight on the evidence than it can bear. An example is the Carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin, claimed by believers to bear an image of Jesus. Some skeptics have claimed the Carbon 14 dating of the shroud has proven without a doubt it is a fake. But the dating was not done well and is likely to be inaccurate, producing uncertainties in the estimated age of the shroud: the evidence adduced will not support the claim. This flaw in the argument does not go unnoticed by believers. Skeptics' arguments are more likely to succeed if they accept uncertainties in the available scientific evidence.
A similar way to sink your argument is to select only the facts that seem to support your position. An example of this error is seen in explanations of near death experiences as glimpses of life beyond death. Believers tend to remember only near death experiences that seem to support the notion of an afterlife, ignoring all those which do not support the notion.
Skeptical arguments may also be hamstrung from failing to clearly define what is being discussed. What euthanasia means to one person may be very different from what it means to others. Until a single, clear definition is agreed on the argument is sure to flail on inconclusively.
Perhaps one of the most important things to avoid is negativism, knocking other viewpoints with humor or slurs. The minute you belittle your opponents you have lost an opportunity to influence their views. When James Randi skewers the credulous, he may rally his allies, but turns off those he wants to influence. Effective argument requires tolerance and understanding as well as clear thinking and good evidence.
Copyright 1992-2005, The Association for Rational Thought