Mirroring your critic's criticisms is an important rhetorical tactic.
Here is a quote from Liz Greene, one of the pioneers of astrology:
...I don’t think [research] is valid from the point of view of trying to prove that astrology works, because if you have the kind of mentality that is dead-set against astrology, you will try to blow holes in the statistics anyway. ... if I took that research to somebody who defines statistical research in a more "scientific" sense, they would say: "Three hundred people is nothing. What you need is 3,000 and a neutral control group." Whatever you do, they’ll find a way to set other tests.
With tiny tweaks we can reverse the position of her quote yielding a common critique of astrology:
...I {do} don’t think [research] is valid from the point of view of trying to {dis}prove that astrology works, {but} because if you have the kind of mentality that is dead-set {in favor of} against astrology, you will try to {ignore} blow holes in the statistics anyway. ... if I took that research to somebody who defines statistical research in a {less} more "scientific" sense, they would say: "Three hundred people is nothing. What you need is 3,000 and a neutral control group." Whatever you do, they’ll find a way to set other tests.
Here's another example. For a long time, the debate between the psychics and its skeptics has had an element of the "open minded vs. critically minded debate". Now the psychics are saying "we're critical too":
Denial of the existence of Psi phenomena seems to be increasingly the refuge of those who are simply not willing to look at the evidence with an open (but still critical) mind.
and the scientists are saying "we're the open minded ones!":
There seems to be an extremely common experience amongst people who don't believe in certain non-scientific concepts to be told by those who do to be more open-minded. This advice is typically based on highly flawed thinking, including an inaccurate understanding of what open-mindedness is.
It's good to see scientists are learning to market their viewpoint better. Handicapped by reality, it can be hard for them to compete with the fiction writing skills of their opponents:
What emerges is a consensus that vaccination is not consistent with the principles of homeopathy, even if it is a crude application of the law of similars.
Nice. To mirror, homeopathy is a crude version of a vaccine in the same way a rubber ducky is a crude version of a duck.
Subscribe