Safety Net Answers
I'd like to introduce you to a tactic that is often used during informal scientific arguments. I call it "using the safety net". It's a very simple tactic that means you never have to lose an argument. In most cases the person using this tactic isn't even aware that they're doing so—it's that easy.
There are many different types of safety net and I've provided some examples below. In all cases the objective is to shut down the debate without conceding a loss. Note that safety nets are a last resort—you can't win an argument with a safety net but you can avoid admitting defeat.
Examples
The catch-all statement
This is probably the most popular safety net, and it can be used against any evidence that you don't like. It doesn't really matter about the type or strength of the evidence, you can just dismiss it with a response like one of these:
- "I don't trust the government, they lie about everything."
- "Scientists get things wrong all the time. They're probably wrong about this thing too."
Disputing the existence or reliability of the evidence
You can dismiss evidence by claiming that it doesn't exist or it's scientifically invalid, for example:
- "Have you seen this evidence with your own eyes? If not, you can't really know if it's true."
- "That's anecdotal evidence so you can't use it."
I've talked to flat-earthers about how the positions of stars in the Southern Hemisphere don't match the flat Earth model. Flat-earthers often respond by asking me if I've ever seen the southern stars myself—implying that these stars are not actually where I think they are. When I tell them I'm an astronomer living in the Southern Hemisphere, they tell me that my evidence is anecdotal and therefore invalid.
These people are making two mistakes:
(1) They assume that if you haven't personally witnessed some evidence then that evidence shouldn't be considered valid. In reality there are many ways to validate evidence without personally seeing it. If every observer in the Southern Hemisphere reports seeing the star Sigma Octantis in the same position, and anyone on Earth is free to travel and confirm this for themselves, we can accept this information as being valid.
(2) They call evidence reported by someone else "anecdotal". However "anecdotal evidence" means unverifiable evidence from the past as reported by witnesses. If I tell you that the Southern Cross will be in a certain position from my point of view tonight, this is not an anecdote. It's not a story from my past, it's a prediction of a future verifiable observation. This is pretty much the opposite of anecdotal evidence.
The impossibly complicated answer
One way to avoid having to back up a claim is to say that the details are too complicated to explain. This approach shuts down the discussion, with the added bonus of making the person saying it sound more knowledgeable than their opponent. For example:
- "It's to do with Einstein's relativity. Look it up."
- "The electric universe theory explains all this."
People who say these things are often bluffing, confident that they won't be challenged. Sometimes they genuinely believe what they are saying, most likely because they heard it from someone else and it sounded convincing.
It's part of the cover-up
A favourite of conspiracy theorists, this tactic turns any lack of evidence or unwelcome evidence against a claim into support for the claim. For example:
- "There are no close-up photos of the Moon landing sites. They obviously don't want you to look too closely."
- "This UFO whistle-blower is the victim of a smear campaign. The fact that his employment records don't exist proves that the government is trying to discredit him."
The barrier to evidence
If you are asked to provide evidence, you can claim that you can't, either because it's impossible or you are being prevented from obtaining the evidence. For example:
- "I can't can't talk to spirits of the deceased while there are skeptics in the room."
- "We can't get photos of the edge of the flat Earth because they won't let us into Antarctica."
Kick for touch
"Kick for/into touch" is a sporting term and an idiom that means to stop whatever action is happening and regroup for a new, different battle. If you're losing an argument about science, kick for touch and start again with a different topic. For example:
- "Who cares about where the stars are? Let's see you explain why pilots can't see the Earth's curvature."
- "You're just throwing maths at me because you know I don't understand it. Let's talk about something anyone can understand."
The tactical withdrawal
As a last resort, you can simply refuse to admit that you're wrong, for example:
- "That's your interpretation; mine is different."
- "We'll just have to agree to disagree."
This tactic leans on the assumption that differing views are good, that it takes dissenting opinions to get to the truth, etc. In principal this makes sense but if an item of evidence is independently verifiable, you can't just agree to have different opinions about whether it is verified. You can debate the interpretation but not the observed facts.
I recently talked to a flat-earther about whether or not the Sun's apparent size changes throughout the day. He was quite sure that it appears larger at noon and smaller at sunset. I pointed out that when I measure the Sun's angular size it's always the same. He told me that we'd have to agree to disagree on this one. Okay, we can disagree, but the Sun has an angular diameter of 0.5° and anyone who disagrees with this is wrong.
Let's be honest here... suggesting that you agree to disagree about something that can be measured is just embarrassing.
Summary
In case it's not obvious, safety net arguments are not a useful way to debate. Unfortunately most people are guilty of using a safety net at some time and I'm sure I've done it myself. However it's something we all need to be aware of and strive to avoid.
Page information
Author: Dave Owen