Belief Revision
My friend said, “global warming is a hoax.” I said no its not. He said, yes it is. I said no its not and added something about the overwhelming scientific consensus. My friend, who is normally a reasonable guy, started listing the familiar talking points: collusion among scientists to fund their research projects; the climate is not really warming; even if it is warming, it is not caused by human activities. The conversation ended when he said, “I’ll never change your mind, so lets just agree to disagree.” And that didn’t feel good.
Later, after giving it some thought, I asked him if I could have another try to see if we could make some progress. He agreed. So I started by clarifying his position. “You believe global warming caused by human activities is a hoax, right? Does that mean you think human activities have zero impact on climate?” He said, “Well not zero but its negligible. “OK,” I said, so all the things humans have done over the years have had no significant impact, but maybe some? And what about our choices in the future, will the impact on climate always be minimal? Even if we pollute like crazy?”
In this way I changed the conversation from hoax yes/no to shades of gray — from an on-off switch to an adjustable dial. Then we could turn our attention to what sorts of things might lead to global warming, what can we do about it, what approaches will give the most bang for the buck, etc. I pointed out that many solutions will have other benefits like clean air and water, reduced reliance on foreign oil, and so on. It felt better to both of us that the conversation was unstuck. The two of us may never solve global warming, but we found a way to keep talking about an important contentious issue and remain friends.
This approach is one of several belief revision methods I’ve been studying. Another is Bayesian probability, where you revise your beliefs when you get new information that differs from your previous beliefs. This is called “adjusting your priors.” Maybe that will be the subject of another post someday. Now I’ve got you on the edge of your seat for sure!
This is Bill not Elaine. The one thing that you did very well is not debating the conclusion before starting with factors that could possibly lead one to that conclusion (or maybe not). If I was arguing about Palestinians needing their own country for example, I might start with do you think Palestinian citizens of Israel should be able to own their own houses. Unless the person is an extremist, they likely would find that reasonable (they can’t by the way). Also like you did it’s starting with a discussion about something they can relate to based on their experience.
I admire your patience with your friend and his/her willingness to try the conversation again. I can’t seem to avoid or ignore the rhetoric coming from so many people that is amplified every day. Most recently in the debate. I am concerned that I have become an angry woman. I work so hard to calm myself with art, reading novels and enjoying my grandchildren but anger is waiting in the wings every day.