I stayed home sick today (seems I caught a bit of a stomach bug), so I decided to pass some of the time watching silly Google/YouTube videos. One of the videos I came upon (while looking for videos of any of the bridges in Seattle that have sunk over the years), was this video. The title of the video is “Creationist Kent Hovind Reveals The Truth About Dinosaurs And Evolution!”
Now, I’m of a firm belief that in order to believe in something, whatever it is, you should give just time and effort to alternative theories or ideas. In the case of creationism, we don’t have to spend much time studying the argument, but we should at least spend time studying the rhetoric. After all, the creationist movement will teach us a fair deal about human nature.
One of the most striking occurrences in the video, and in the few others I have watched over the years, is the use of “common sense”. We all seem to have some idea of what common sense is; I would define it as the ability to quickly reason about a subject so that one can act upon it in a timely manner. For example, if you walk into your house and the door has been broken in, you should be able to quickly reason that 1) your house has been broken into, and 2) you should call the cops and get the hell out of there. In circumstances like these, you wouldn’t use, say, the scientific method to prove that someone is in your house. You don’t go looking inside to find the person who broke in, and, if you find them, inquire as to whether or not they warrant calling the cops over. In this case, you don’t really need hard evidence, since the benefits of being right (say, surviving, and possibly catching the person) far outweigh the unlikely penalties of being wrong (the police tell you that you are an idiot).
The problem with common sense is that its use should be severely limited. I remember a moment in one of my psychology courses at RIT where the professor, Nick DiFonzo, was sharing the results of some interesting studies. I don’t remember exactly what studies he was talking about, but the story will suffice regardless. He said to us, “Here is a study by <some researchers>, who found that aboriginal people in Australia sleep much less, on average, than non-native Australians. Why do you think that is?” he asked. We all gave responses along the lines of, “well, they have to work for their food, and can’t sleep as long”, or, “well, they sleep on the hard ground, which probably keeps them from sleeping.
You know what the answer was? None of the above. The true study said the exact opposite of what we were all answering. And the real answer was that you can find supporting, “common sense” “evidence” for anything you want. The study wasn’t about sleeping patterns of aboriginal Australian people, but whatever it was, we had wonderful reasons for the results Professor DiFonzo was describing.
If you take the time to watch the video, the argument he lays out seems so obviously incorrect, mostly from the fact that he doesn’t argue anything. Now, he uses cute rhetoric to make the “other” side look like their argument is weak, but those of us who don’t believe in creationism have an immensely hard time swallowing the rather vapid argument. It would be like somebody arguing to us that 50 ft. under the ground, the crust of the earth is fluorescent pink. We would think he was full of shit.
So why do the people in the audience seem to lap it up so easily? Now, don’t jump to silly confusions about how these people are stupid, or unable to argue for themselves. A classroom of honors students at RIT just as easily fell into the trap, which either says that we are just as stupid, or that something more general and much more invidious is going on here.
We can concentrate on what they have in common. In each case, some authority figure is telling us that some information source (scientific study or the bible) is saying that something is true. That figure then asks us simple, common-sense questions about why this is true. When we start from a conclusion and search for evidence, the world is ripe to provide. In each case, we find a simple argument for agreeing: 1) we believe in the authenticity of the source, and 2) there is no obviously apparent evidence to the contrary. In both cases, the thing we are arguing about really bears no relation to “common sense”, if you will.
There are other neat tricks in the video, if you ever want to get into the business of selling faulty logic for a living (read: politics). My favorite is a point when he is talking about how my ark existed. He uses a number of rather crappy word tricks.
- He explains that there are over 270 stories about the flood, from many different religions and cultures, and this, therefore, explains that 1) the bible is correct (all throughout), 2) everyone really believes in the bible (without knowing it), 3) there really was a flood, and 4) atheists are entirely wrong. Of course, starting with 3, a preponderance of stories doesn’t necessarily mean that there was a flood (although there really was a flood, somewhere in mesopotamia. I watched a really cool Discovery Channel thing about when the flood happened, and how tons of people died, and how they think they also found the “Garden of Eden”, which was some luscious tropical jungle-like area that sat in valley between mountains). Besides, where did he get the 270 number? Secondly, for #1, just because a single fact may be correct in the bible does not necessitate that the entire thing is fact (and the fact that the bible alludes to a real flood isn’t very surprising, considering that it picked up many of its fables from the people at the time). Third, for #2, perhaps the story from Hawaiian people is really correct, and we all believe in that, or the Chinese version. And, finally, #4 is the real kicker – most people don’t disagree that there was some kind of major flood, but that has no bearing on the bible.
- My personal favorite is using a letter written in by an Atheist, or the examples of arguing with some professor from some university in Boston. In both cases, he makes the arguer out to be the epitome of the other side’s argument, and, in both cases, he makes the arguer out to be some type of uncouth idiot. The email was especially poignant, with such phrases as “You are so stupid!”. Note that the email, which was trying to make the argument that hanging heavy rocks off a ship would slow it down, had absolutely nothing to do with what anyone was arguing. Neat little bait-and-switch, there.
- He always asks the audience simple questions with obvious, common-sense answers. This is an easy way to win an argument, along the lines of, “Well, if your mother was raped and murdered, would you want to exact revenge on the culprit?” to prove that capital punishment is in everyone’s best interest. (My favorite answer to this argument is from an episode of the West Wing, when someone asks the president something along these lines, using the hypothetical of Zoe [his daughter] being raped, etc. His response is something along the lines of, “Of course I would want to kill the bastard. That is why they don’t put fathers of victims on the jury.”)
- He quotes numerous sources, not to use them as evidence, necessarily, but to appear to be making a scientific argument. Also, he uses plenty of visuals, since people always respond well to visuals.
Well, if you have time, go watch the video. Don’t watch it just to make fun of it, but try to learn something from it. As always, the best way to win some of these arguments is just not to argue them (e.g. answer me this, would you rather rape a woman or a man? Either way, you’ve just lost the argument).
One final word of warning, and I mean this from the cockles of my heart: don’t ever, ever be that guy. I don’t care what you are arguing for, or even the outcome of the argument. Politicians can be the greatest rationalizers in the world, about how using the rhetorical tricks wins arguments and saves people, but they are ever so wrong. This is akin to the doing a small evil to prevent a great one type of situation. It is never all right to argue using these tactics, and regardless of the substance and outcome of the debate, the world as a whole dies just a little bit every time that you do. People like this guy aren’t bad people because they are creationists, and people who argue against aren’t bad because they are atheists. The people who argue like this are bad because they are resorting to deceit to get a point across.