How Credible Are You?

The Internet loves a good argument. Show me a forum and I'll show you half a dozen people arguing four or five separate issues all originating from one article. Unfortunately, not everyone knows how to have an honest debate. I'm not talking formal university style Lincoln-Douglas debate or anything like that, just two or more people being honest with themselves and each other about what they know and what they don't know. I spend a lot of time in forums, and at one time or another I've seen a whole bunch of arguments and a lot of different people behind those arguments. In the interests of keeping forum debates civil (something EVERYONE desperately wants to do, of course) I have come up with a few rules to help out. These rules were originally created for people wanting to debate me about things like conspiracy theories, religion, anti-science stuff and general woo, but it can be applied to all discussions. They are simple rules, but if your arguments violate any of them, then perhaps you should spend the effort to fix them before bothering me. Failure to do so will invite ridicule and name calling. If you do not treat your opinions with any respect, how can you expect others to do so?

Rule #1: Just because you don't understand something that happened to you, it doesn't give you justification to say "It must be {insert extraordinary thing/event/idea here}". It remains exactly what it is; something you don't understand. If you can't figure something out, it doesn't mean that no one else can either. If you find yourself saying something like "What else could it be?" then you probably stopped looking for evidence and already made up your mind.

Rule #2: Absence of evidence contradicting you is not evidence of a government cover-up. That the government lies, I will grant you, but if you don't have any evidence of what really happened, then you can't use that fact to prove anything except that you don't have any evidence. You cannot turn the fact that the government lied about something being a weather balloon around to say that it proves the government has an alien spacecraft.

Rule #3: Experts are experts for a reason. They don't just know a little about something. They know A LOT about it. If someone who is an engineer tells you they have seen explosions like that before, it would be a good idea to give them the benefit of the doubt. All things being equal, they're right, and you're wrong. If you think they might have a conflict of interest, then you better have evidence of that.

Rule #4: (This goes along with #3) Someone is not an expert on something simply because they or you say so, and inserting a PhD in someone's name does not automatically lend credibility to everything that comes out of their brains. A scientist outside of his or her field of study is a lot like everyone else (ie.. not especially knowledgeable) when called on to give an opinion on something, and their opinion should not be treated as the opinion of an 'expert'. This goes double for weathermen who are not meteorologists offering their opinion on the global climate. "Weather" is different than "Climate", and it goes quadruple for any psychic offering an opinion on alleged psychic phenomena. An "expert" in a field that has not been proven cannot be considered an expert. The same goes for cyptozoology, Ufology, and Paranormal Research. Also, using the Bible (or any holy book) to justify anything is not allowed. End of story. The Bible is not an historical text or a technical manual, no matter how many people believe in it. There are some good ideas in the Bible, but if they can't stand on their own without invoking religion or a deity, they will likely (and justifiably) be dismissed out of hand. If you want to use a holy book to help you prove something, you must first establish the credibility of the holy book itself.

Rule #5: Witness testimony can support an argument, but not carry it. You are not allowed to use the phrase "What reason would this person have to lie?" or anything similar, such as "Real Psychics have nothing to prove" The amount of money supporters of weird phenomena get is not insignificant, and any newspaper with enough money to turn on the lights will gladly give anyone with a half-way convincing story their 15 minutes of fame. Take a look around the TV channels sometimes. Ghosts, psychics, conspiracies, government cover-ups and aliens are all big business. Anyone wanting to get their face in front of a camera or their name in the paper can do it by lying. The more creative the story, the better their exposure. It is an unfortunate fact that people will lie for money, for publicity or even to put one over on another person. No reason to lie is not good enough. A witness must have reason NOT to lie.

Rule #6: If the person or persons that started the idea that you are pushing is subsequently found to be a con-artist or publicly cops to a hoax or turns out to be falsifying data, you no longer get to cite him or her as a reliable source. Especially if that person is the sole reason for the "idea" to exist.

Rule #7: Pictures lie. Anyone can take a still photograph and turn it into almost anything they want to. In the digital age, unless the picture is taken on a camera that uses film where negatives are produced, the only way a photo-shopped picture can be identified is when inconsistencies are found in it, things that defy the laws of physics. If you are using a picture to prove the existence of something that defies the laws of physics, you are not proving anything. Even an un-retouched photo is only a single frame. It rarely tells the whole story and can often be misleading if taken by someone in a hurry after their friend said "What the Hell is that?". Video is better, but super-zoom and/or shaky-cam are automatic disqualification. With the level of CGI available today, even video can't be relied on. Pictures and video are good corroborating evidence, but cannot stand on their own as proof.

Rule #8: You are not allowed to refute a statement I haven't made or turn a question into a statement. This is called a "straw man" argument. If I ask "Have you had a biologist give an opinion on this?" you cannot say I said you were wrong or that you don't know what you're talking about, or that you are lying.

Rule #9: If you're not an expert, don't try to sound like you are. Do not launch into a explanation of why the fuzzy video of something vaguely humanoid walks just like a large ape-human hybrid unless you are an anthropologist or you are able to show that a real anthropologist agrees with you. This also means that you cannot first make the claim that "No one knows much about these things" and then proceed to explain what is going on. The particularly chronic violators of this rule are those people who believe in a god who "works in mysterious ways" and cannot be judged by mere mortals and then proceed to explain to me the nature and morals of their deity. You cannot have an unfathomable god that you happen to be able to fathom. (See rule #12) Pick one.

Rule #10: Show your work. If experts support your opinion, explain which experts, what they've said that supports what you are proposing, the expertise they have that allows them to make such statements. If you have no expert opinion available on the matter, then your entire argument should consist of "I think that this {event/picture/sighting,etc} is(or is not) a {noun}" and you should leave it at that. For instance, belief in a god is fine. Having faith in the face of the lack of evidence is what it's all about, but don't tell me that your personal experience/belief in any way trump my personal experience/belief unless you bring evidence to the table. You want to play in the realm of science and logic? You better play by the same rules.

Rule #11: If I create a rebuttal where I point out five logical errors in your idea, you may not refute two or three or even four of those arguments then claim victory. It is not a ball game where three out of five will get you a win. One logical error destroys the entire argument, regardless of what you do to the other four. You may still be right, but you can't prove it. You have to neutralize all five... or start over.

Rule #12: If you are trying to create a logical argument for something, take the time to learn about logic. Logic is not a matter of opinion and does not rely on what "sounds good" You do not have to be a good speaker or a good writer to make a logical argument understood and there is no excuse for being unable to accomplish at least that much (running into a troll notwithstanding; rule #13). If you are having a problem being understood, refer to a dictionary. This is EXACTLY the kind of situation they were created for. The definition of any word is only one Google search away.

Rule #13: Trolling is stupid. Doing it on purpose is worse than useless, and just makes people mad. Don't do it. For those who do not know what trolling is, it is an argument that neatly avoids any counter argument by simply ignoring all opposition and restating your conclusion. Most of the time insults are mixed in with the conclusion. I can't tell for sure if everyone who argues like a troll is doing it on purpose, but I know that many do, usually to score points with their own side or to bait someone into trading insults or baiting someone into trying to argue logically against someone who has no intention of using logic or valid arguments. If you catch yourself doing this accidentally, get out while you can, go home and practice a lot before trying to debate someone again. Most often, even if you originally had a point, if you are suspected of being a troll, you have most likely lost all credibility.

Rule #14: This is the companion of #13. Do not assume that just because you cannot understand what I'm saying that I am automatically a troll. If I don't understand something that you said, I will ask. You do the same. This is called communication. The only way to find out who is right is for both sides to try to understand why the other person is saying what they're saying.

These rules sound simple, but I have yet to see a conspiracy theory that abides by all of them, and many that don't abide by a single one. Save this article, and if you see me on a forum and you feel the need to set me straight about something. Take it out, read every rule about three times and check your argument against them. If your argument breaks one of these rules, it's a good bet I will be unimpressed and decide you are wasting my time and yours.