How to Make Your Thoughts UNCONVINCING

I have been thinking about the topic of making one’s thoughts unconvincing over the last few weeks based on some interaction with an acquaintance of mine. He is promoting some ideas. Some of the ideas have genuine merit, I think. Others at least have potential for good topics of discussion.

While there was some merit to his ideas, I would say that his arguments for those ideas was not only unconvincing, but “anti-convincing.” That may not be true for everyone, but for some people, the arguments would tend to make an uncertain person pretty confident that his ideas were wrong. I won’t discuss his ideas or his arguments. I am neither seeking to promote his views nor disparage them. But here are some ways to make your thoughts unconvincing.

Argumentation Using Esoteric Ideas or Knowledge. The term “Esoteric” means “intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.” Often it is used for tiny religious movements, especially those who limit the sharing of there group’s wisdom with outsiders. However, I feel it can also be used for an sub-culture (including Internet sub-culture groups). For example, suppose one is convinced that the fortifying cow’s milk with Vitamin D is a government plot to control elementary school children. (With my luck, there probably is a group that believes this.) Referring to millennia-old Siberian shamanistic practices or stone engravings at temple sites in the Yucatan peninsula is likely not to be very convincing. It is like saying, “Hey! You know how you don’t know if this statement is true? Well here are a bunch of other statements that you don’t know is true to support this.” In practice, use of esoteric knowledge is really only convincing (normally) for those who are insiders on the shared beliefs. It feels convincing to a person because members of the same group already agree with it, or at least share many of the beliefs that are related to it. The “Spaghetti Principle” of Argument. Often when one does not have a very strong argument, it is tempting to share in rapid-fire a whole bunch of weak arguments. It is like the saying “Throw a bunch of spaghetti against a wall and see what sticks.” Many years ago, James Frazer wrote an amazing work of cultural anthropology, “The Golden Bough.” Its full unabridged length is well over 1000 pages, and its abridged form is a better part of 1000 pages. He uses the whole book to support one argument regarding a somewhat obscure Roman era cult. It is page after page of obscure vignettes from “primal cultures” around the world. It seems as if he thought that putting so much stuff out there that people would ultimately be convinced that he must be right. It is a classic case of quantity as a substitute for quality. More than a century later, most (all?) cultural anthropologists believe that Frazer’s beliefs are wrong… or at least not convincing. “Trust Me, I’m an Expert” Argument. Of the three, this is the one that is probably the most likely to work. There is an expression— “If you can’t blind them with brilliance, then baffle them with bu$$$$it” If you can convince the reader that you must really know the subject because you “sound so knowledgeable (or informed)” then you must know what you are talking about. In terms of logical fallacies, this is “Appeal to Authority.” If you can convince people you are an expert, you don’t have to go through the difficult process of demonstrating what you are saying is correct. Recall how Luke in the Book of Acts describing the Bereans as being of “nobler character” because they listened to what Paul preached, but then later studied on their own to see if what he said “held water.” This statement by Luke suggests that in at least some of the places that Paul went, his words were accepted or rejected based on their determination of his authority (or lack thereof). One problem with appeal to authority is that many people simply won’t grant you it. For these people, they will quickly see behind the curtains and recognize that you have given nothing substantive to compel one to accept your argument. This alone may make your case collapse like a house of cards. Another problem is that those who believe based on your authority can suddenly reject later since their convictions tend to be shallow.

To argue successfully does not necessarily mean that one must avoid all logical fallacies. It does not mean one must use well structured inductive or deductive reasoning. Frankly, many people don’t find such arguments compelling. But I do think two things are important (at the least).

A. Convince them about something they don’t know through using things they do know (or believe they know). Don’t tell them something they don’t know is true by using supporting evidence that they don’t know is true. Often it won’t work. Even if it does work, it can hardly be satisfying to be a manipulator through falsehood (unless you are a person who absolutely does find satisfaction in manipulating people through falsehood).

B. Work within the culture and thought structures of the people you are talking to. What makes one group find something compelling may be very different from what another person would find compelling. For example, if a Mormon or Muslim was trying to convince me that their associated faith was correct and I should convert, quoting from the Book of Mormon or Quran (respectively) would be a poor move. I have no reason to consider either work to be authoritative. The fact that they find such an argument compelling is understandable, but they would need to realize that their arguments must be based on my thought patterns, not theirs.

I know we live in an age where the people who talk loudest tend to be believed. Does this negate what I am saying her? I don’t think so. Christians are a people of faith. However, we should also be a people interested in truth. Ignoring truth because we are trying to get people to faith— well, I think that puts us at war with truth and ultimately in conflict with God.