Comments on: Beware Inward Apologetics

By: Robin Hanson on our tendency to argue for our group and against enemy groups « Mike Kenny

Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:58:31 +0000

[...] Robin Hanson on our tendency to argue for our group and against enemy groups. [...]

By: Assistant Village Idiot

Assistant Village Idiot — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 05:24:43 +0000

Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” We usually accuse the religious or political groups of engaging in this behavior, but there may indeed be a universal tendency to this perseverance. Maybe Dennett especially.

By: Brian Moore

Brian Moore — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:43:45 +0000

I know I’m late, but Daniel Dennett uses almost the exact same wording as this:

“Someone willing to embrace unreasonable arguments for his group shows a willingness to continue supporting them no matter which way the argument winds blow.”

… in his book “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.” Which I think anyone reading this site would enjoy, if they haven’t read it already.

By: Charles Twardy

Charles Twardy — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:32:20 +0000

The discussion attempts to answer “Does the essential irrationality of the arguments have a function in building group solidarity?”, but I must have missed the link where apologetics (Christian, Bayesian, Mathematician) were shown to be essentially irrational.

By: Buck Farmer

Buck Farmer — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:51:05 +0000

How about the simple fact that offering a reason makes a statement or request more likely to be believed regardless of what the reason is. See the photocopy experiment where people complied 93% of the time when asked:

“Can I use the photocopier because I need to make copies?”

Compared to 94% for:

“Can I use the photocopier because I’m in a rush?”

or 60% for:

“Can I use the photocopier?”

By: Steven Hales

Steven Hales — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:14:45 +0000

Doesn’t experimental econ handle this idea in information cascades leading individuals to ignore their own private information and follow the herd? If the herd is wrong then loyalties will be weak the cascade dies out. In the case of trying to prove a negative “wrongness” is more difficult to establish (as you outline above) and loyalties might be stronger or more resistant to challenges. Reiterating the argument by respected agents might reinforce the herd behavior and again private doubts are ignored say in the case of religious loyalty or loyalty to a cause like “save the earth”. Isn’t this also a network problem as in six degrees of separation. The relative strength of the connections or closeness to the center might explain degrees of loyalty.

In a real world case of apologetics theologians shore up christian doctrine in their attacks on Rick Warren, the popular evangelical minister. Since Warren deviates from accepted christian doctrine in his church he is fertile ground for christian apologetics. Bur Warren’s ideas are an information cascade that the theologians can’t effectively counter. His ideas seem to be accepted by many christians of all denominations even though many of Warren’s ideas and practices run counter to their own church’s liturgical message. So we have an apologetic within an information cascade engulfing the target of the apologetic but having little real effect. So who is the target of the apologetic? Perhaps it is just other theologians.

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:28:08 +0000

There are many reasons one might want to leave a group. If “because rational arguments convinced me” is a better looking reason that the real reason, you may want to claim that was your reason.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:14:57 +0000

Then why do rational arguments sometimes convince people to leave a group? I suspect your answer will be that these people are now signalling to the ‘rational’ group instead of the original group by accepting ‘rational’ arguments. Would it be going to far to say that no one is persuaded by rational arguments, or that no one is rational. Some of us just try to signal to those who think of themselves as rational.

By: Mike Kenny

Mike Kenny — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:07:00 +0000

No no, but in some cases acting crazy can make people more cautious around you, less inclined to harass you, possibly more likely to give in to you.

By: richard silliker

richard silliker — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:13:24 +0000

It must have been a slow day at the John P. Meier household when he came to this conclusion, “The a priori conviction of such polemics is simple and unshakeable:”

Groups provide for continuity of purpose and as long as people like the ideas of the group, they will remain.