Category: CUSAP After Hours

CUSAP After Hours: Debate with compassion while sharping your philosophical razors

Author: Maya Lopez (Blog Chief Editor)

Following our first event in 2024 which was more of a lecture format, we then had a workshop on debating – but with a dash of compassion – to see if we can really change minds. This was organized by our two co-chairs of CUSAP, where we discussed the theories and practical tips on addressing conversations with misinformed individuals and some role-playing in a relaxed at-home evening at Queen’s. Here are some of the takeaway messages I got from the session, a few tricks that everyone can have under their sleeve to be a better communicator, and a handful of “philosophical razors” to further sharpen critical thinking.

So why should I even “debate”?:

A long long time ago in my previous life as a teenager, I used to attend academic debate events. I often hear people say you’ll learn to love the things you’re good at. But for me, receiving awards in debates was never really enjoyable. Academic debates (especially those meant to discuss truly debatable topics) are inherently about the art of debate and presentation. Hence typical signs of toxic online debaters could apply here too: it could resemble a play of words, a heated battle going back and forth, and tactfully trying to point out the opponent’s logical flaws (ie, being a nitpicking jerk aiming for the GOTCHA moment). Somehow the better I scored, the more I felt like a… horrible person.

And really, anyone doing this even in the calmest manner in everyday life is far from likable and most likely won’t convince others with different opinions. (Case and point, Socrates might have many philosophy and logical frameworks credited to him, but arguably what sent him to his death row is his bona fide troll-ness…). Furthermore, in academic debate, there is more or less a referee to fact-check – but who is there to do that in real-time in everyday conversations?

This is why I personally shied away from debates as I hit college – it was mentally draining and felt even like pulling the worst out of me. But naturally, there are times in life when you will encounter those with different opinions – hopefully just a “debatable” opinion – but what if some of such “opinions” are harmful? or dangerous? or demeaning? It may be more immoral to NOT debate – or really to show and persuade other ways of thinking. So this CUSAP event was also my personal journey to re-study debate in a different light – as a way to empathize and suggest different ways to look at things with compassion.

So then, what’s the trick?

We covered many theories during the session but here are a few highlights:

  • Golden minute → A technique commonly practiced by clinicians where they give about a minute at the beginning of patient examination to just let the patient describe all of their symptoms. Being attentive during this minute through other active listening techniques without interrupting can not only make your patient feel heard but also give a great opportunity to let their emotion and perceptions be shared. Similarly in the context of misinformation debate, the person who you are talking to might very well be in some sort of unease or (emotional) pain. So give them time to let it out. …and academic debate-wise, this is quite tactful because you let the opponent reveal their cards first… But all jokes aside, listening is a genuinely underestimated aspect of a conversation because it’s easy for us to carry in our bias too. We might assume where their misinformations are coming from and attribute that to certain personality characteristics. So let them speak before we make unfair assumptions.
  • Good faith principle → Speaking of unfair assumptions, this next technique literally is just that. It is apparently even a way of thinking by law, and as a word suggests, one should not assume that the misinformation/conspiracy theory is coming from a bad intent. Of course, the boundaries of mis and disinformation can be murky, but in most daily contexts, what are the odds of encountering individuals who profit off of spreading post-truth? Rather than an evil mastermind, it’s more likely that we are just talking to someone who’s genuinely confused, agitated, concerned, or scared.
  • New information over denial of info → Bombarding with denial (ie screaming telling YOU’RE WRONG), is quite ineffective at altering beliefs. Studies suggest a difficulty in people simply changing beliefs when they are presented with opposing facts because cognitively these two juxtaposing facts will need to compete over the position of the belief. So rather than confronting the misinformation head-on, we could just present new information that will make the listener think (or better yet question) the premises of their conclusion. 

Let’s say a person takes an anti-COVID vaccine stance which they say is because they can’t trust evil pharma and this is just a scam to make a profit. Sure, big pharma is a company too which is profit driven. But, I read that AZ didn’t make a profit with the Covid-19 vaccines. Also, there are worldwide equitable programs like COVAX, no? …Hopefully partially agreeing, but also showing new facts regarding their premise of all big pharma projects = bad will get them to explore views instead of if we were to just opposing their conclusion that COVID vaccine = bad. Of course, this is not bulletproof, and this can lead us to….

  • Steel-man tactic → The person you were talking to doubled down and argued that vaccines bad because big pharma bad. Okay, then you know what, let’s explore that together. You may know this tactic’s evil twin brother called straw-man which just dodges the bullet, but in this case, you purposely bolster their argument and then explore what their strongest version of the argument will look like. An interesting post here details the process we can put into practice, but essentially this will allow the two parties in conversation to be together on the same page to explore nuances. Who knows, maybe you’ll end up agreeing with the big-pharma-bad part and the difficulties in capitalism in general, at which point is this at all about vaccines? and off we go to the anti-capitalism march! Or maybe there will be some nuances: well not all projects are bad I guess, especially if particular projects are non-profit. Either way, exploring further into the why behind the misinformed conclusion, can lead to constructive exploration, leading ultimately to an undated conclusion.

Of course, there were a lot more tips that we covered in the workshop, but I personally think it boils down to our intent. Think about why we want to persuade them. Most likely, we care about them to some degree. Then show that. TELL THEM THAT. In fact, I’d argue that if your intent to “debate” is just to show off your “smartness” (not even for the knowledge’s sake but especially to “put them down”) perhaps you should not be engaging this in the first place. Perhaps, we need to first ask ourselves about the good faith principle – and if we fail this litmus test, we may do more harm than good.

Some final thoughts and sharpening your critical thinking with philosophical razors

Overall, this was a very uniquely CUSAP workshop – not just because of the theme around pseudoscience, but because it reflects our will to improve as a empathic communicator. It is perhaps far too common amongst academic circles to be lost in the pleasure of the logical precision and vast amount of facts we can present about a topic during a debate. This may be an excellent tactic in academic debates, but our intellect should also realize that to change the hearts of others, we can’t just end in such “self-indulgence”. While I say this, it’s not an easy feat (I’m most definitely a beginner in the techniques mentioned above). Besides, we are people too, and when topics are touchy as pseudoscience, it is fair to acknowledge that it might hurt our feelings just a bit too – being denied of our daily efforts in pursuit of science -.

Furthermore, just because you are a student of STEM doesn’t automatically immunize us to pseudoscience too. Even before debating others in an attempt to persuade, our own logic and perception should be also challenged (albeit, as a CUSAP member I do recommend standing firmly on the ground that we are convinced to be scientific, and acknowledge that not absolutely everything is a matter of perspective). In an attempt to persuade, is our explanation getting overly convoluted? Shave it down with your trusty Occam’s razor! Did we poorly phrase how we think things “ought” to happen, by making a sudden leap from what IS taking place based on our preconceived notions and expectations? Even if this is from good intentions, philosophically these two notions should be separated with Hume’s guillotine!

At this rate, it feels like swiss-army-full of these philosophical razors will sharpen your critical thinking to make a perfect debate case, but don’t get yourself too carried away. In the context of pseudoscience, it’s tempting to pull out Alder’s razor, which claims that if something cannot be experimentally tested or through observations, then it is not worthy of debate. Especially in many pseudoscience topics, this might be the kneejerk reaction you will gravitate to (you know that it is a waste of time to even contemplate Earth is flat!). But this razor has its cavitate where this philosophy itself is not “scientifically validatable” and at which points it puts the whole premise under a strain. This is where we might have to dial down on this whole dismissive attitude toward all “unprovable” theories (and hence how our science is right), but rather focus on the theories that can be proven wrong using Popper’s razor (also known as the Popper’s falsifiability principle). While this will allow us to present the best scientific theory that is not currently falsified, should we be debating “theories” so fundamentally fantastical with equal priority as those at least partially based on scientific reality? We can use Sagan’s razor (aka Sagan’s standard) to cut down such extraordinary claims that are not supported with extraordinary evidence, to ultimately pick our games.

There are still more of these philosophical razors, but at the end of the day whether these concepts help us with critical thinking or the debate tactics we learned in the session are all something that can’t be done easily without practice. Sometimes the conversation will get emotional, and sometimes the conversation happens at the wrong moment when things are very personal. While practicing these skills on the go out in public, therefore, might seem scary, I think CUSAP has cultivated a safe space for all of us – united with the goal of betterment – to explore and discuss our ideas. Putting this knowledge to the test and practicing our “art of compassionate debate”. 

If this kind of science philosophy is your spiel or you just want to boost your science communication skills (and trust me, we hold a lot of casual, at-home vibe sessions!), consider joining us at the CUSAP mailing list or Instagram. Come say hi at one of the upcoming events if you can make it 🙂

Sources and Recommended Reading:

  • Most sources are hyperlinked in the text but here are some few key picks:

CUSAP After Hours: Pseudoscience – the Science through the Looking Glass

Author: Maya Lopez (Blog Chief Editor)

One way to describe pseudoscience is perhaps a distorted science.  In some way or another, they present features that feel scientific, even to an exaggerated level.  However, as the mirror separates the un-melding reality and its reflection, such distinction can be made between science and its reflection – pseudoscience.  Today we will explore such philosophical grounds to prevent pseudoscience from infiltrating reality in this post-truth day and age. To this end, we will look into the original philosophical definitions and key takeaways I got from a special lecture – our first official event of this academic year – by Prof. Hasok Chang. He has also been supporting us as Senior Treasurer from the inception of our society.  The lecture posed a deceivingly simple but surprising philosophical question: What is Pseudoscience? And the clue to this question lies about 100 years ago, on May 29, 1919. 

Arthur Eddington, the director of Cambridge Observatory led an expedition to observe the solar eclipse to test the theory of relativity. Eddington and Dyson positioned themselves at Principe Island, while another expedition team with Crommelin and Davidson was in Brazil. Together they were challenging Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.  If it was correct and the light is indeed bent by gravity, stars in the Taurus constellation would be visible during the eclipse, positioned differently compared to the calculations by Newtonian physics. Together, they made the observation that marks history: stars aligned with Einstein’s theory.

However, this was not the only history that was being made on this day. This story influenced a young 17-year-old in Vienna, and to quote himself “(it) had a lasting influence on my intellectual development.” Karl Propper would eventually become the philosopher who explored the philosophical distinction between knowledge based on science and what he coined as pseudoscience.

But first, what is science?

To unravel the question of pseudoscience, we first had to test our own perception of science itself. This may seem straightforward, based on what we learned about the scientific method in middle school.  But what is science, really? More specifically in Popper’s words:

When should a theory be ranked as scientific?”

Surprisingly, this was a question that modern philosophers had never fully characterized up until Popper. While characterizing vast and wide “science” itself may be difficult, we can find the constituents of things we deem scientific.

So let’s lay some on the table. Many aspects of what we often perceive as scientific might be a little something like: quantitative, explanatory, and empirical. However, all these aspects are in fact well conserved in other domains that we also could define as – in Popper’s terms – pseudoscience (or at least non-hard/natural science). For example, consider the “social science” domain like Economics. Modern Economics also uses models that can be expressed in equations, presenting itself as more heavily mathematical than perhaps some of the medical sciences. Now let’s consider the next aspect on the list: explanatory. Conspiracy theories are no match in terms of explaining things – the icebergs can get so deep and it’s bulletproofed against all counterarguments, because see?  Interpret it this way and it’s just another proof that absolutely everything ties back to the Deep State! But then, at least hard science is the most empirical approach to knowledge… right?

Objective and empirical data gathered from replicable experiments… but words like “objective” and “replicable” are not as clear-cut as one may hope. After all, to those who believe in pseudoscientific theories such as Flat Earthers, their experiences are indeed genuine replicable “experiments” that can be tallied and quantified objectively. So, these typical “qualities of science” like empirical-ness are unfortunately a matter of perspective and not a uniquely defining factor. To further complicate the matter, such a struggle for replicability is also in the world of actual sciences. Major natural science publications have been noting the “replicability crisis” for years, and it is important to acknowledge that even with a genuine intention of scientific experiment, small differences in interpretation and methods can pave the way to this replicability crisis.

…So by now, if you are feeling more confused about what science than before we started, fret not because this is very confusing. According to Prof. Chang, many undergrads facing this question in the HPS course will very often fall into the same pitfalls of presumed scientific qualities as those listed earlier. When pseudoscience at its core seems to mirror – and sometimes “outperforms” in – so many key qualities of science, and when in fact some cases of “pseudoscientific” theories turned out to be the basis of the next science and vice versa, you can’t help but wonder:  Is there no way to identify science from the pseudoscience?  While it is indeed not a clear-cut line to separate the two, luckily there is a philosophical distinction to be made.  

Falsifiability and Popper’s observation on “predicting” the present vs. predicting the future

Back to Popper in Vienna, the early 1900s was an unprecedented epoch in the field of knowledge. A new realm of physics was being proposed by Einstein. Historical Materialism was proposed by Karl Marx as a new view on history, and the relationship of observed human behavior as a phenomenon is now seemingly explainable by Sigmund Freud’s Psycho-analysis. At the time, these frontiers of knowledge were arguably treated with equal weight as new theories that pushed the boundaries of the scientific mainstream. However, Popper concluded that not all “scientific achievement” was made equally depending on whether the method of obtaining the knowledge was to confirm an existing belief OR to actively attempt to disprove the unreality of the null hypotheses.

Let’s unpack that concept following the footsteps of Popper himself. Popper used to take the lectures by Einstein and was studying the psychoanalytic of Freud. One day, he asked Alfred Adler himself (an ex-colleague of Freud who eventually formed his own theory of individual psychology) about a case report that was seemingly not… Adlerian. Yet when asked, Adler easily explained the case using his theory, leaving no discrepancy. Given that Adler has never analyzed the individual of the case, Popper asked why he could be so sure to which Adler replied that his thousands of former experiences support this theory.

And this, was ultimately what distinguished Einstein’s theory to be the only truly scientific theory amongst the list earlier. Adlerian theory in this case was used to “predict” why the behavior had/has been taking place and it is so hard to “disprove” a retrospective interpretation.  Similar criticism can also be applied to (in?)famous Freudian psychology.  While still regarded as the foundations of modern psychology, it hasn’t aged too well when it comes to how “scientific” his theories are where every feminine intimacy issue is seemingly rooted in male genitalia envy and daddy issues.  They explain why certain psychological phenomena happened so well by encapsulating them into logically constructed theoretical frameworks (although even then, it did cause disagreements, leading colleagues like Adler and Jung to depart).  While such Freudian theories gave us the satisfaction of feeling like we understand why things are – this is still a retrospective explanation of a past – an explanation behind the known result. They didn’t, however, do as well when it comes to predicting unseen future behaviors – which often scientific hypothesis aims to do. This importance of how you verify scientific claims is perhaps akin to association and causation in modern medical science.  Even if substance X is correlated with say cancer, you can only scientifically show that it causes cancer if you set up an experiment where you put that substance – in say mice or cell culture – to test your prediction on “unseen future” by seeing if it does form cancer or not. While you could always reinterpret past events (or interpret dreams in Freud’s case) to support your theory, if the cancer didn’t form or the stars didn’t align in 1919, the scientific theory is simply not working.

Furthermore, Popper brings in a new approach to this philosophical limitation of verificationism – falsificationism. In brief, Popper’s realization of the distinctively “scientific” approach to a theory by Einstein, led to philosophical conclusions that focus on how science actively disproves future possibilities to approach truth while pseudoscience (as in nature of the knowledge rather than modern conspiratory connotation per se) focuses on proving and explaining past phenomena.  Following is the excerpt of his writing from 1962 outlining this concept in detail: 

  1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations.
  2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory—an event which would have refuted the theory.
  3. Every ‘good’ scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is
  4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
  5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testabilty: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
  6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. …
  7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later [after 1920 –NS] described such a rescuing operation as a ‘conventionalist twist’ or a ‘conventionalist stratagem’.) 

This was a revolutionary approach to thinking: only by interrogating your hypothesis by exploring other opposing possibilities, you can be confident about your theory. Furthermore, this lends to the idea that one day, when we do get an observation that contradicts our model, our standing theory will be then proven wrong.  However, Popper believed that every falsified theory is “good” because we were able to rule out a possibility, putting us closer to the truth. This is perhaps the beauty and the complexity of the scientific method: it’s a long, iterative process of elimination, but we get closer to understanding the world, one step at a time.

Being comfortable with uncertainty

While now we have some philosophical grounds to determine which knowledge is more scientific than the other, this inevitably opened up another eerie reality: uncertainty. Scientifically, you can be confident that something is most likely a correct representation of the truth – but this is far from the solid explanatory fact -THE truth! – we all crave. After all, being confident about a theory still leaves room for the probability of exceptions. Science is inherently uncertain.

Nevertheless, the volatility of “truth”, is arguably the very appeal for aspiring scientists. You are off to an adventure of the unknown and you are using any tools to best encapsulate the mysterious nature lying in front of you. While this is a romanticized view from a reader of science myself, I can easily imagine that from anyone outside of the adventure crew, we can appear as a bumbling mess at times or worse, untrustworthy contradictorians and a hypocrite.

Many of the modern scientific achievements progressed through the process of falsification. This ultimately lends itself to denying at least part of the former discoveries, and thus individual reports across a timeline may appear contradictory. Even if this is inevitable and the reality is often more nuanced than the black-and-white “contradiction”, we must admit: flip-flopping on conclusion appears unprincipled and possibly dangerous for fields that directly affect life like medicine. Imagine if you asked a friend for advice.  This person says one thing but then next month, does a complete 180 and even stack up evidence on why you were not supposed to do that. The explanation is certainly factual and logical, but the emotional appeal on whether you can trust this guy is put on a pedestal because it ultimately makes YOU responsible – requiring you to put in the work with a thinking cap.

In some circumstances, this might feel liberating. You are in charge of your thoughts based on a knowledgeable friend with references to back up different claims.  But if you’re in your lows, or if you are in a desperate situation? This is too much – you might even find this friend irresponsible because you wanted advice to follow. In such a scenario, another friend – a more charismatic, authoritative figure who TELLS you specifically how to think with absolute certainty, and taking that red pill is all of a sudden more appealing.

So… is science doomed to lose the trust over pseudoscience?

Through the lecture, we explored further case studies of pseudoscience, attempts to change people’s minds, and personal experiences shared by Prof. Chang.  But for today, I would like to round up with one of our key ongoing questions as CUSAP: What can science as a community do to be more trusted?

There is unfortunately no simple or singular answer (and yes, this is a cheat code academics use to jade the rest of the society, sorry). However, I think scientists themselves have a lot more we can do to change how society perceives science. I will even call it mandatory for scientists to care about this question and public communication of our work. Combatting the distrust should be the paramount importance to our profession, because we didn’t go through the painstaking process of all these degrees to be demarked as fraudsters, right? Are we not searching for truth to better understand the world? To better the world as we know it?

Partly, I declare this because I understand that it is not easy. Despite how Hollywood may portray “academic figures” like Nazi-fighting Indiana or tech-superman epitomized by Iron Man, science IS NOT THAT GLAMOROUS! Spending 4-6 hours (or more….) tending your cells (or counting god forbid), running around the field, and weekend lab time to feed your cultures – you may be surprised at how much “tedious” stuff takes place under the hood. Of course, for some, every moment of this work might be a pure joy – because they LOVE what they do -. But for many, like all jobs, there can be bits that we don’t particularly love.

But then what keeps us driving is the sheer belief that this search into reality will mean something. For medical researchers, this may be for our health. And how ironic is it if we are stuck in our ivory tower preaching our findings to better the society and no one trust what we say? Maybe it’s time to say goodbye to the genius scientist archetype or the heroic tech-bro myths, take off this facade of “logical (and thereby superior), non-emotional intellectuals”, and embrace our emotional drive. Because we care about facts AND emotion, for we love and care about the world of wonders – including everyone that inhabits it 🙂

If this kind of science philosophy is your spiel or you just want to learn some new cool misconceptions surrounding science (and trust me, just being a STEMM student does not make you immune to this!), consider joining us at the CUSAP mailing list or Instagram. Come say hi at one of the upcoming events if you can make it.

Sources and recommended reading: