As a relevant skill in your situation, you should learn to distinguish refuting and rejecting an argument. Rejecting an argument refers to not changing your own state of belief, while refuting an argument refers to changing other person’s state of belief. If your response doesn’t change another person’s mind, then you’ve merely rejected the argument, not refuted it. (Counting some activity that doesn’t result in the other person’s change of mind as refuting an argument defies the purpose of the terminological distinction.)
If we are talking about an old-time cult member, refuting their wrong cult-generated statements is nearly impossible, so usually there is little point in arguing at all. The goal should be to perhaps minimize conflict, but not to convince, unless you actually expect a nontrivial probability of success, which you should recognize as usually absent. Don’t play the lottery.
For practical purposes, I would say that it makes sense to regard an argument as refuted if impartial observers of the debate feel that you have properly dispensed with it.
Since they tend to be less emotionally invested, there’s often more point in carrying on a debate for the sake of observers than for the other participants.
For practical purposes, I would say that it makes sense to regard an argument as refuted if impartial observers of the debate feel that you have properly dispensed with it.
This would only be practical if you are trying to convince the observers, not if you are trying to convince the opponent, and certainty not if nobody is listening in. Psychological adaptations intended for optimizing your status in the tribe would pay attention to this sense of “refuting”, but it doesn’t at all apply to the situation I was addressing, where you should learn to ignore what these adaptations insist on.
(Also, the observers these adaptations care about are not necessarily impartial, so a high-status human can use nonsense “rebuttals” to “refute” any reasonable argument in this particular sense, since your allies would cheer you regardless.)
It usually makes more sense to try to convince observers than to convince the people you’re debating with. It has a much higher rate of success. Even if the observers aren’t really impartial, they’re under less pressure to uphold their position.
Although it can be emotionally taxing to walk away, one of the primary factors I take into consideration when deciding whether it’s worth having a debate at all is who else is listening to it.
Good point. I’m not sure I intended my article to emphasize that I necessarily want to “refute” anyone, but perhaps that’s what you’re getting at by introducing the idea of “rejecting” an argument.
I mainly want a way to “defuse” conversations about religion specifically so that they don’t turn into pointless debates that just waste time and inflame emotions.
As a relevant skill in your situation, you should learn to distinguish refuting and rejecting an argument. Rejecting an argument refers to not changing your own state of belief, while refuting an argument refers to changing other person’s state of belief. If your response doesn’t change another person’s mind, then you’ve merely rejected the argument, not refuted it. (Counting some activity that doesn’t result in the other person’s change of mind as refuting an argument defies the purpose of the terminological distinction.)
If we are talking about an old-time cult member, refuting their wrong cult-generated statements is nearly impossible, so usually there is little point in arguing at all. The goal should be to perhaps minimize conflict, but not to convince, unless you actually expect a nontrivial probability of success, which you should recognize as usually absent. Don’t play the lottery.
For practical purposes, I would say that it makes sense to regard an argument as refuted if impartial observers of the debate feel that you have properly dispensed with it.
Since they tend to be less emotionally invested, there’s often more point in carrying on a debate for the sake of observers than for the other participants.
This would only be practical if you are trying to convince the observers, not if you are trying to convince the opponent, and certainty not if nobody is listening in. Psychological adaptations intended for optimizing your status in the tribe would pay attention to this sense of “refuting”, but it doesn’t at all apply to the situation I was addressing, where you should learn to ignore what these adaptations insist on.
(Also, the observers these adaptations care about are not necessarily impartial, so a high-status human can use nonsense “rebuttals” to “refute” any reasonable argument in this particular sense, since your allies would cheer you regardless.)
It usually makes more sense to try to convince observers than to convince the people you’re debating with. It has a much higher rate of success. Even if the observers aren’t really impartial, they’re under less pressure to uphold their position.
Although it can be emotionally taxing to walk away, one of the primary factors I take into consideration when deciding whether it’s worth having a debate at all is who else is listening to it.
I agree. It’s just not the sense I was talking about.
Good point. I’m not sure I intended my article to emphasize that I necessarily want to “refute” anyone, but perhaps that’s what you’re getting at by introducing the idea of “rejecting” an argument.
I mainly want a way to “defuse” conversations about religion specifically so that they don’t turn into pointless debates that just waste time and inflame emotions.