The validity of arguments from conversion

William Rea said:

I do take notice and, as best I can I try to understand the variety of positions that they adopt politically but, whether through democratic means or not, their tactic is to close down other people's right to challenge what they say. Sure, the rhetoric doesn't sound like that but, that is what they aspire to.

Click to expand...

How do you know what these people aspire to? Your guess about what other people want can be wrong at least some of the time. Let me give you an example.

Jonathan Haidt recalled a rally held by Trump supporters back in 2015 or 2016 in one of his book. It's either "The Coddling of the American Mind" or "The Righteous Mind," but those details aren't crucial here. This rally was peculiar because Black Lives Matter protestors happened to walk by the rally and approachedthe Trump supporters. Now, without being required to do anything, or prompted to do anything, guess how the organizer of the Trump rally reacted. The guy went on stage and he invited the spokespersons of the BLM movement to come on stage, that they would give them a few minutes to present their views to everyone present and that everyone would listen because it's a matter of freedom of speech. Just to be clear, the Trump supporters organized the rally. They gathered the crowd. They paid for the installations. They had no obligation whatsoever to let another group of people get on stage. Yet, they openly offered a stage, a microphone and a captive audience free of charge.

How did the speech go? Well, the BLM spokesperson started to explain that they were concerned about the few cops who engage in excessive use of force and the disproportionate consequences it has on visible minorities such as black people. Someone in the crowd then shouted "All lives matter!" Fortunately, the spokesperson was a smart person. He said "That's right, brother. All lives matter," and he went on to explain they just want to tackle difficult problems to make sure all Americans can be safe. He won over the whole crowd: Trump supporters and BLM protestors were all cheering along saying "USA! USA!" I bet you never even imagined something like this could be possible, but the proof is in the pudding.

So, I have established that there is at least a small crowd of Trump supporters who value freedom of speech so much they will give you ressources to speak about a message they might not entirely approuve. Some people on the right actually will go out of their ways to let you talk.


Do you know why this miracle worked? Jonathan Haidt quotes Pauli Murray to explain why it works: "When my brothers try to draw a circle to exclude me, I shall draw a larger circle to include them. Where they speak out for the privileges of a puny group, I shall shout for the rights of all mankind." The BLM spokesperson won the crowd because instead of focusing on what makes them different, he focused on what makes them the same: they're all Americans and they all want the country to be good for every American, even though they might disagree about how to do it. The thing most people would have done, had they been on that stage would have been exactly the wrong thing. They would have answered "all lives matter" by trying to convince the whole crowd that they are racists... and, today, I might be writting about how a dozen people lost their lives in a brawl instead.

It's the primary problem I have with how you approach those political issues. The discussions are emotionally charged and instead of trying to explain to me why you think conservatives are wrong, you try to explain to me that conservatives are bad people... Imagine that you sell cars and, one day, an obese person walks in. Your approach right now is like trying to explain to the obese person that they should take a SUV because they're fat. I think you'd sell more SUVs if you focus on the properties of the SUV and not on the properties of the clients: SUVs are spacious sells more than SUVs can fit fat people in.

I forgot to mention something about the argument from conversion, mainly when it comes to political ideologies. Oftentimes, the person will make it seem less like he left the group and more like the group became more extreme or began focusing on stuff that doesn't matter. An example would be Dave Rubin who claims that the left moved really far to the left, putting him closer to the center or even on the right. Another possible case is Tim Pool, a journalist who claims to be liberal but also criticizes the left heavily.

And how can we forget the all time classic


Quite a few democrats claim the opposite, that the republican party has become more and more unhinged throughout the decades, putting them in the center or on the left.

Using a conversion by itself as a case for or against something is fundamentally an argument from authority. Specifically, that the converted individual is an authority on their previously-held beliefs, and are therefore more trustworthy for no longer believing in them.

Using a converted individual as a case for or against any specific belief is also a form of confirmation bias: "see, this Christian used to be an atheist, but he now believes what we believe." The implicit argument there being that the conversion itself is evidence of the truth of one's beliefs. The logic goes something like this: if my beliefs aren't true, then why are other people coming over to my side? Such logic is often a stand-in for someone's inability to effectively articulate to themselves why their beliefs feel more true to them than other beliefs.

Someone using their own conversion experience to describe the thought process and self-analysis that lead to their new belief system is a bit different. "I used to believe X, but now I believe Y, and here's how I got to Y from X..." is more a narrative piecing together several pieces of evidence.

Masterhawk said:

Quite a few democrats claim the opposite, that the republican party has become more and more unhinged throughout the decades, putting them in the center or on the left.

Click to expand...

The beauty of this claim is that it is imminently testable.

You actually can go back, look at information relevant to determine the policy position of each party in Congress and see how those evolved. Of course, it's nice to do it in different ways to see if the results aren't too sensitive to the choices you make.

The Economist did it here. Pew Research did it:

And the New York Times did it here. The full article can be found here.

The picture is similar, regardless of the source. As a matter of fact, Democrats veered to the left at an accelerated pace over the last few years. It is true that Republicans moved a bit to the right. It is more visible in the graph provided by The Economist than in the figure provided by the New York Times if you have trouble seeing it. But they barely budged.


Democrats have moved so far to the left that the Obama of 2008 would have no chance of grabbing the primaries today. You know, the guy that Republicans spent 8 years calling a marxist, a communist and a socialist is too much of a centrist for his own party just 3 years after he left office.

As a side note, the New York Times was trying to paint Republicans as radicals by using international comparisons. If you prefer to see things from this point of view, Democrats only catched up with other leftwing parties abroad. It doesn't make the change any less extreme.

VINLO said:

Using a conversion by itself as a case for or against something is fundamentally an argument from authority. Specifically, that the converted individual is an authority on their previously-held beliefs, and are therefore more trustworthy for no longer believing in them.

Using a converted individual as a case for or against any specific belief is also a form of confirmation bias: "see, this Christian used to be an atheist, but he now believes what we believe." The implicit argument there being that the conversion itself is evidence of the truth of one's beliefs. The logic goes something like this: if my beliefs aren't true, then why are other people coming over to my side? Such logic is often a stand-in for someone's inability to effectively articulate to themselves why their beliefs feel more true to them than other beliefs.

Someone using their own conversion experience to describe the thought process and self-analysis that lead to their new belief system is a bit different. "I used to believe X, but now I believe Y, and here's how I got to Y from X..." is more a narrative piecing together several pieces of evidence.

Click to expand...

Indeed, it's an argument from self authority. Nobody gets to set truth. More specifically, it's an argument from personal experience. It may form part of one's personal identity but it doesn't get to change what's already been established by scientific scrutiny. This would also include people claiming to be healed by God or people coming back from Heaven or Hell. Similar experiences would include people claiming to have reincarnated or been abducted by aliens.

Masterhawk said:

Indeed, it's an argument from self authority. Nobody gets to set truth. More specifically, it's an argument from personal experience. It may form part of one's personal identity but it doesn't get to change what's already been established by scientific scrutiny. This would also include people claiming to be healed by God or people coming back from Heaven or Hell. Similar experiences would include people claiming to have reincarnated or been abducted by aliens.

Click to expand...

This sounds contradictory, referring to the portions I have bolded.
It almost sounds like Science gets to set truth.

So, explain to me how nobody gets to set truth, but Science must approve it.

I am thinking in particular where scientific scrutiny said this or that did, or did not happen, but decades or centuries later, recounted experience was proven correct, and scientific scrutiny was demonstrated mistaken.

IOW, I agree with you, that Scientific scrutiny does not get to set truth. Only because we know Science sometimes gets it wrong.

Norml said:

This sounds contradictory, referring to the portions I have bolded.
It almost sounds like Science gets to set truth.

So, explain to me how nobody gets to set truth, but Science must approve it.

I am thinking in particular where scientific scrutiny said this or that did, or did not happen, but decades or centuries later, recounted experience was proven correct, and scientific scrutiny was demonstrated mistaken.

IOW, I agree with you, that Scientific scrutiny does not get to set truth. Only because we know Science sometimes gets it wrong.

Click to expand...

Science is mankind's knowledge of the world around us. Scientists exist to do two things: to expand mankind's knowledge and to apply it. I never said that scientists get to define truth. What I really meant was is that you're much more likely to get the truth from the experts because they are knowledgeable on the subject.

not appeal to authority: 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth is warming due to fossil fuels being emitted from fossil fuels. This is probably happening.

appeal to authority: I know that global warming is happening because Bill Nye said so.

To further understand why this is the case, let's look at two economists, both being nobel prize winners. One generally believed in lazzes faire economics and was more or less libertarian. The other sees more eye to eye with Bernie Sanders. Those two people are Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman So which one was right?

In general, you are better off listening to the consensus as whole rather than any particular individual. Scientists abide by the scientific method, a process that takes a hypothesis and tests its merit. If you find yourself disagreeing with the experts, you may want to ask yourself what you know that they don't. When it comes to economics, there are three mainstream schools (and plenty of heterodox ones): neoclassical, monetarist, and keynesian. Each of these schools have their agreements and disagreements.

Masterhawk said:

Science is mankind's knowledge of the world around us. Scientists exist to do two things: to expand mankind's knowledge and to apply it. I never said that scientists get to define truth. What I really meant was is that you're much more likely to get the truth from the experts because they are knowledgeable on the subject.

Click to expand...

So, science is a gamble. Odds are, Science has it right.
So we agree, sometimes Science gets it wrong.
Sometimes human experience is right, Science is wrong. It does not happen often, but it definitely happens.

not appeal to authority: 97% of climate scientists believe that the earth is warming due to fossil fuels being emitted from fossil fuels. This is probably happening.
appeal to authority: I know that global warming is happening because Bill Nye said so.

Click to expand...

And over 70% believe human activity does not need to be modified.
Over 70% believe this global warming has no affect on their life.
Over 70% sees no need for government intervention.

To further understand why this is the case, let's look at two economists, both being nobel prize winners. One generally believed in lazzes faire economics and was more or less libertarian. The other sees more eye to eye with Bernie Sanders. Those two people are Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman So which one was right?

In general, you are better off listening to the consensus as whole rather than any particular individual. Scientists abide by the scientific method, a process that takes a hypothesis and tests its merit. If you find yourself disagreeing with the experts, you may want to ask yourself what you know that they don't. When it comes to economics, there are three mainstream schools (and plenty of heterodox ones): neoclassical, monetarist, and keynesian. Each of these schools have their agreements and disagreements.

Click to expand...

Explain how the Scientific method has tested their theories about global warming.

Hint: Their are no hands on experiments, only thought experiments, that were discarded as being unreliable. In the 60's thought experiments once again became acceptable, for verifying the beliefs of Science. Thought experiments were used to verify evolution.
Thought experiments have simplified the Process of Science.

For the record, you are the one disagreeing with the experts, not me.
The experts say global warming is no special concern for governments.
That is the majority viewpoint.

Norml said:

So, science is a gamble. Odds are, Science has it right.
So we agree, sometimes Science gets it wrong.
Sometimes human experience is right, Science is wrong. It does not happen often, but it definitely happens.

And over 70% believe human activity does not need to be modified.
Over 70% believe this global warming has no affect on their life.
Over 70% sees no need for government intervention.


Explain how the Scientific method has tested their theories about global warming.

Hint: Their are no hands on experiments, only thought experiments, that were discarded as being unreliable. In the 60's thought experiments once again became acceptable, for verifying the beliefs of Science. Thought experiments were used to verify evolution.
Thought experiments have simplified the Process of Science.

For the record, you are the one disagreeing with the experts, not me.
The experts say global warming is no special concern for governments.
That is the majority viewpoint.

Click to expand...

Well, this certainly shows a lot of misunderstanding of 1) science 2) climate change/global warming

There is this thing known as 'observation'. There is also the knowledge of 'how does various substances absorb and reflect heat/sun'. .. which can be determined via experiment. It's not rocket science.

Let's look at an exxon internal memo about the predicted levels of CO2 that was in 1982. we basically are at the high end of their predictions, but it's within the range. They predicted we would be about 1 degree higher than the average from the 20th century, with a co2 level of 415 ppi.

https://insideclimatenews.org/sites...982 Exxon Primer on CO2 Greenhouse Effect.pdf

RAMOSS said:

Well, this certainly shows a lot of misunderstanding of 1) science 2) climate change/global warming

There is this thing known as 'observation'. There is also the knowledge of 'how does various substances absorb and reflect heat/sun'. .. which can be determined via experiment. It's not rocket science.

Let's look at an exxon internal memo about the predicted levels of CO2 that was in 1982. we basically are at the high end of their predictions, but it's within the range. They predicted we would be about 1 degree higher than the average from the 20th century, with a co2 level of 415 ppi.

https://insideclimatenews.org/sites...982 Exxon Primer on CO2 Greenhouse Effect.pdf

Click to expand...

Let's look at what scientists say.
Survey: Most Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis
Published on December 18, 2016


Just 36% of scientists fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

So, nearly 2/3 of the scientists in the study believe humans are not the main cause of global warming.

What scientific experiment demonstrates that human activity is the primary cause?
What scientific experiment demonstrated that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
What scientific experiment demonstrates that government can legislate an end to global warming?

Petition, signed by 31000 American scientists.


"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. "

Norml said:

Petition, signed by 31000 American scientists.


"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. "

Click to expand...

Did 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change a Hoax?

RAMOSS said:

Did 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change a Hoax?

Click to expand...

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

Norml said:

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

Click to expand...

The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Larry Bell in Forbes

A recent article by Larry Bell in Forbes went over the now-familiar ground of denying the consensus on climate change. He criticized the Doran and Zimmerman study for having too small a sample size and for asking vague questions (although, as I will discuss below, he is forgiving of similar questions and sample sizes of a study done by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA)). He cited the Oregon Petition, debunked here, while ignoring the work of Oreskes (2004) and Anderegg et al (2010). He cited the Polish Academy of Sciences PAN Committee of Geological Sciences, while ignoring the position of the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences, which endorses the IPCC conclusions, along with many other national science academies.

Most of Bell’s arguments have been debunked before and there’s little point in discussing them here again in detail. However, I have some personal familiarity with APEGGA, having been a member of this organization for many years, so I will look at that case of a supposedly dissenting scientific organisation in more detail.

Click to expand...

and the debunking of the oregon petition

How the OISM Petition Project casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

Masterhawk said:

When it comes to economics, there are three mainstream schools (and plenty of heterodox ones): neoclassical, monetarist, and keynesian. Each of these schools have their agreements and disagreements.

Click to expand...

I do not want to drag the discussion too far off topic, but I think my expertise in economics might be relevant here. In macroeconomic theory today, what you will find in top journals are DSGE models of either the Real Business Cycle type or the New Keynesian type and depending on the type of question you want to address, you can see some people work with both of those points of view. Those would map into neoclassical and keynesian strands of thoughts, respectively even though things have changed substantially since the 1970s. Nowadays, you will see RBC models with plenty of market frictions and sources of inefficiencies used to study labor market policy in a labor market that is not even modelled using supply and demand -- those would be search and matching models.

Masterhawk said:

What I really meant was is that you're much more likely to get the truth from the experts because they are knowledgeable on the subject.

Click to expand...

It depends on the problem. A mass of people interacting in a market can be surprisingly good at digesting information rapidly.