Stop Dumping A Load
The Art of Citation Dumping
We all know those internet smart asses... the "well actually" person who wants to rain on your parade with perceived facts and statistics. I was one of those people and I don't regret a second of it.
Do you know how many scumbags made major claims without a shrivel of evidence? It was too many to count.
But at one point I started to question the fruits of my labor. Was debunking and slam dunking on people actually effective? While there is some research arguing yes it actually is, I started to question the purpose of my message.
I was also helpless to the vast onslaught of disinformation online. So, I began to feel helpless as no matter what I did there were still people believing outright lies related to health.
These were the hardcore science deniers, the "free-thinkers", and tinfoil cases. No matter how many facts I threw at them they weren't going to change their mind, I mean not over a short internet interaction that is.
It didn't matter how many studies I threw at these people and it didn't matter how much logic I actually used.
So, what does work for a science denier or conspiracy theorist? My preferred method is technique rebuttal.
Technique rebuttal means to argue against the techniques a person is using to arrive at their conclusion and this calls into question the conclusions themselves.
For example, almost all science deniers use tactics associated with the acronym FLICC. If we can show why using these tactics is wrong despite the topic being discussed we can cast doubt upon their argument.
This is different from topic rebuttal. Topic rebuttal entails arguing against someone based on the established facts related to a topic.
While there is evidence both topic and technique rebuttal are effective at lessening the impact of misinformation I still prefer technique rebuttal, here is why.
Nearly Anyone Can Learn Technique Rebuttal
Anyone can learn and apply the techniques of FLICC. You do not need to be a mega genius when it comes to vaccination, climate change, or evolution to see the logical fallacies someone is deploying in their arguments.
This is the power of technique rebuttal. When you understand that science can never be 100% certain and that’s okay you start to realize faulty expectations from people are misguided. There will never be 100% safety for any medication including vaccinations, there will never be 100% proof of climate change, and we can never be 100% certain the Earth isn't just 2,000 years old.
However, the expectation of 100% certainty is misguided as that can be applied to anything. We can never be 100% certain that gravity exists or invisible flying ponies aren't in the skies.
Technique rebuttal can easily guide us out of the bullshit we see online, such as the claim that "natural is better". Considering this line of logic when talking about major diseases, natural catastrophes, or poisons in nature.
It is fairly easy to teach someone "natural doesn't necessarily mean better" than to teach them the basics of biochemistry and toxicology. Topic rebuttal requires a certain level of competency and expertise on a given subject while technique rebuttal does not.
Technique rebuttal is merely the recognition of the techniques used in bad arguments against science. This should not take as much training as getting a Ph.D. in a particular subject or reading so many different books on a topic.
One can simply learn the acronyms FLICC, SIFT, and CRABS in order to get a solid start.
Technique Rebuttal Transcends Topics
Once you start picking a part the bad arguments in one area of science you start to see it in other areas. For instance, the idea "natural is better" does not pop up only when talking about dietary patterns but also for GMO foods and vaccines.
One simple misconception, science denying tactic, or bad argument can transcend multiple given topics.
Another example would be the emphasis on ancedotal evidence. Ancedotes or testimonies are not reliable sources of information because they cannot possibly apply to many different people. They're tailored to one individual and that individual alone which is why we conduct studies on many different people across various different demographics.
Nevertheless, anecdotes are often propted up as irrefutable evidence in the nutrition and health space. They're used not only to back up diets suggesting to exclusively eat meat, but also alternative medicine practices and even flat earth arguments.
As you can see the tactics are often transcendent amongst various topics. This cuts down on the need to be an expert in GMOs, physics, evolutionary biology, climate science, nutrition, and more.
Getting specialized training is often a laborious process that takes years to achieve. Even if you get a PhD in one area, you would only be a specialist in that one defined area of interest you study.
Technique rebuttal allows anyone to be a generalist and engage with the overall tactics used by science deniers.
This was illustrated perfectly in the book How to Talk to a Science Denier as the author Lee McIntyre tries to reason with flat earthers. McIntyre is a philosopher not a physicist, but he is effectively able to converse with individuals who think the earth is flat.
This success was due to his ability to recognize the overall themes and tactics of the argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.
Understanding Technique Rebuttal Helps You Think Better
While critical thinking is tough to define I will simplify what it generally means… it means to think better. But what do we mean by better?
In this case, “better” means more accurately in accordance with reality. So, when we think critically we use tools, methods, and attitudes that get us closer to what is truly going on.
In order to have a rebuttal against techniques used by science denialist one would have to understand the tools, methods, and attitudes by which science works. While you can certainly master your understanding of the fallacies and why certain tactics are absurd to truly master technique rebuttal you need to understand “why”.
Why are fallacies detrimental to arguments? Why is science probablistic rather than certain? Why is natural not always better? Why can’t I just rely on anecdotes?
These are questions which make us think better in accordance with reality. The fact that science seeks to test the physical world, it goes about doing this a particular way, and this way works… leads us to think more accurately about our world or better.
Unlike dumping loads of facts and figures on a person, breaking down the techniques of their arguments/thinking might help them reflect on how they arrived to their conclusions in the first place. This is the basis of numerous methods like the Socratic method.
We want to foster the ability and capability to think better aka critical thinking. We cannot complete that mission by dumping citations on a person.