Biweekly Discussion - Persuasion for Skeptics & Atheists

This is going to be an online meetup using Zoom. If you've never used Zoom before, don't worry — it's easy to use and free to join.

Here's the link to the event: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85893663744?pwd=SGhzUlcxYjBVa0IxNUpvYVZZZjE4Zz09

Meeting ID: 858 9366 3744
Passcode: 540889

THE ART & SCIENCE OF PERSUASION FOR SKEPTICS & ATHEISTS:

CAN WE DEBUNK IRRATIONAL BELIEFS WITHOUT TRIGGERING THE BACKFIRE EFFECT - OR SHOULD WE JUST TRY TO BUILD RAPPORT?

INTRODUCTION:

Right before the holidays, you'll often see articles suggesting tactics for navigating potentially heated political discussions with the extended family & in-laws around the dinner table. Sometimes these articles suggest trying to persuade people to change their views, whereas other articles suggest that we merely try to keep things civil and try to moderate people's views a bit. I figured this would be a good time for us to discuss similar efforts within the skeptic & atheist communities to persuade people to give up some of their pseudoscientific or religious beliefs, as well as some movements that merely try to build more trust & rapport between scientists & atheists and the general public.

As we'll see, persuasion is both an art & a science. We need to understand the science of persuasion first - i.e. psychology studies on persuasion can give us a general idea of what works in most cases. Only once we understand what normally works can we get proficient at the "art" - i.e. there's a skillset we need to master in order to persuade individuals in specific conversations, and a lot depends on our ability to quickly adapt to the flow of the conversation and think on our feet, as well as paying attention to our tone of voice & non-verbal communication so we don't come across as aggressive or contemptuous.

In the first section, we'll look at the rhetorical advice that John Cook & Stephan Lewandowsky give in their short 6-page manual called the "Debunking Handbook" released in 2011 on the website Skeptical Science, a site dedicated to debunking climate change denial. Cook & Lewandowsky's book made it a point to craft rhetorical techniques that minimized the chances for a "backfire effect", but as we'll see recent research has suggested that the backfire effect's power may have been overstated.

In the second section, we'll look at some recent efforts to increase the general public's trust in scientists and dispel some common stereotypes about scientists, as well as to create a sense of rapport between individual scientists & lay audiences by facilitating one-on-one discussions. One of these recent efforts was detailed in the 2017 documentary film "Science Moms" which showcased several female scientists who used their combination of scientific training & experience as mothers to try to build rapport with other mothers who might be conned into the anti-vaccine & anti-GMO views and alternative medicine quackery often found on daytime TV shows like Dr. Oz and blogs like "Food Babe" and "Natural News".

In the third section, we'll look at the rhetorical advice that Peter Boghossian gives for challenging people's religious beliefs in his "Manual for Creating Atheists" released in 2013. Boghossian coined the term "street epistemology" for these rhetorical tactics, as it revolves around question how people ground their religious beliefs, which is different than "counter-apologetics" - i.e. logical counterarguments to common defenses of religion that come up in formal debates. "Street epistemology" thus resembles a mix of the Socratic method and therapeutic counseling methods that rely on asking the patient lots of questions to encourage self-reflection. Boghossian's advice was picked up by several atheist YouTubers like Anthony Magnabosco, Reid Nicewonder & Tyrone Wells who filmed themselves conducting short street interviews with religious people where they politely questioned their beliefs. We'll compare "street epistemology" with cult deprogrammer Steven Hassan's "Strategic Integrative Approach" for staging interventions for people who'd joined abusive religious movements.

In the fourth section, we'll look at the arguments that atheist activist Chris Stedman made in his 2012 book, "Faitheist: How an Atheist Found Common Ground with the Religious" for why atheists should get involved in interfaith dialogues. As we'll see, Stedman's arguments met opposition from some prominent atheists like Steven Pinker & Jerry Coyne, who both believe that this "accommodationist approach" where atheists & theists "agree to disagree" is problematic for various reasons.

RELEVANT MATERIAL FROM PAST MEETUPS:

Back in February of 2018, we discussed science activism & science policy, and in particular we discussed whether political advocacy by scientists causes a "backfire effect" and harms public trust in science. A small focus group study by GMU's John Kotcher & Emily Vraga found that participants didn't downgrade the credibility of hypothetical scientists for specifically advocating for action on climate change. However, in a more real-world context, Yale's Daniel Kahan observed that the fast-track roll-out of Gardasil (the HPV vaccine) caused a backlash effect among socially conservative parents who didn't want immunization to signal an endorsement of premarital sex. Kahan argued this backlash could've been avoided if parents found out about the HPV vaccine in private from their doctor instead of via GSK's ad campaign.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/246835989/

In August of 2017, we looked at research on how exposure to new information can change people's minds to see if the "marketplace of ideas" concept can be empirically verified, both in terms of getting people to adopt new scientific theories & getting people to develop more empathy for their out-groups. In the 1st section of the outline, we discussed how cognitive dissonance can lead to a backfire effect in some cases, but research by the political scientists Brendan Nyhan & Jason Reifer suggest that in most cases people "heed factual information, even when such information challenges their partisan & ideological commitments". In the 2nd section, we discussed research into how different forms of activism can create more empathy for minority groups, particularly in terms of shifting people's views on same-sex marriage. In general, the research appears to indicate that in-person canvassing that uses rapport-building can work, but shaming people for their beliefs is liable to backfire.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/240812126/

In November of 2017, the Philly Political Agnostics held a meetup on climate change, and the 1st section of the discussion outline looked at how "cultural cognition" tends to lead liberals & conservatives to become MORE polarized in their beliefs about climate change the more they learned about the issue. This suggests that once scientific issues like climate change take on partisan meanings, merely providing the public with more information is unlikely to lead to wider belief.
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/zgmddnywnbmc/

Those who are familiar with Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) may notice that the techniques of "Street Epistemology" are similar to NLP's "Meta Model" which uses a series of questions to elicit a person's values and force them to examine their own mental processes. Back in February, we had a meetup entitled "The Science of Hypnosis" and in Part 2 we discussed why most psychologists are skeptical about the efficacy of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP). We also covered "brainwashing" and "deprogramming" in Part 4, and discussed why most psychologists doubt that either are possible. This is relevant to the 3rd section of this discussion where we'll talk about intervention strategies for getting people to leave a religious cult.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/ffkqkqyzdbfb/

In July of 2018, we hosted a meetup entitled "Is 'New Atheism' Declining or Evolving?" We addressed the common arguments that "atheism is just another religion" and "the New Atheists are fundamentalists" and we looked at how atheist advocacy & the public perception of atheism might tie into broader trends in religious belief in the American populace, particularly the rise of the "Nones". We discussed how the rise of the religiously unaffiliated may be linked not so much to atheist advocacy as to broader socio-economic & demographic trends, such as increases in education & economic security, rising religious diversity, a political & cultural backlash against right-wing evangelicals, and perhaps even the rise of the internet.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/252679767/