How to debate someone who entertains magical thinking

Debating someone who entertains magical thinking is an exercise in futility. If they want to engage with you, or if you want them to release their magical thinking, you have to nail down the ground rules of debate at the onset of the debate, or at the onset of their magical thinking arguments. Here’s an approach.

ESTABLISH EXTERNAL REALITY

YOU: To ensure we are engaging in a debate in good faith, let’s set some ground rules.

Do you agree that reality exists. You and I are thinking and feeling beings and the laws of physics are real.

For example, You and I are humans who have learned the English language, so we can understand the words we are using, and we can feel physical inputs, and experience emotions. Further, a glass of water cannot turn into a bird and a bird cannot turn into a glass of water.

(If YES then move on, if no, propose a test)

THE TEST: Ok, if you want to deny the laws of physics, or your own existence, I propose a test. I think the walls are real, not imaginary, do you agree? If no, here’s the test. I propose you walk at the walk, at a swift pace, keeping your hands by your side. If the wall is real, as proposed, it will stop you. If it’s not, as you suggest, you should be able to walk through it.

Either they accept the test, and fail, proving reality does exist, or they reject the test and accept the laws of physics and reality do exist, so the debate can go on, or they make up some B.S. that illustrates their bad faith and the debate is over, but they’ve proven they are a bad faith actor and shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone.

Next ESTABLISHED INTERNAL REALITIES

Now that external realities are established, establish the reality that while our senses do an excellent job of sensing the world, our brains interpret the world individually. Some interpretations are near universally agreed upon (water is wet, rocks are hard, gravity causes things to fail to the center of gravity, light and dark are on a spectrum, etc.). That said, our mental models of how and why things work the way they do vary, and these varied mental models can lead two people or groups of people to interpret the same external event differently.

Within the world of mental models, there exists a spectrum of more and less accurate models, and external reality is our testing grounds. It’s possible for one person to be 100% right and the other to be 100% wrong, or some fraction more accurate and some fraction less accurate, and the entire point of debate is for the two people to recognize this reality, accept that they could be the one with inaccuracies in their mental models, and for both to engage in debate armed with rational thought, external facts, and sound ethical understanding which to make their arguments. The goal of debate is the educate and/or learn from the process, and build more accurate mental models of the world as a result.

ESTABLISHING THE REALITY OF ETHICAL TRUTH (partially external and partially internal reality)

Ethical Understanding should be the easiest thing to agree on, but there are a few big barriers to it.

1. Ethical knowledge is innate (everyone has “know-how” to feel physical and emotional conditions), but being able to explain how you “know-why” you are right and someone else is wrong requires ethical understanding. This can be self derived or taught, but being able to effectively derive ethics and explain it is not innate for everyone. Even if you get it right, effectively convincing others they are wrong is another skill set completely.

2. Culture, which largely enforces ethical rules along with other conventional rules through morality, can and often does unethical things, so while it’s necessary to enforce ethics in society it can paradoxically be the thing holding society back from being ethical. Culture can be taught by people, or absorbed via memes. Memes are ideas that have authority over us.

3. People are driven as much by chemical impulses and emotion as philosophy or ethical principles, so good people can do bad and bad people can do good. Simply knowing right from wrong can be insufficient for one to act right in all situations. Adding to this, one’s ego tends to protect itself with delusional or bias thinking, making them blind to their own transgressions, while also be vigilant of others transgressions. This internal bias can make correctly deriving ethics difficult.

4. Convincing someone who is acting unethically to realize the folly of their ways and changing can be nearly impossible. If debate fails, then coercion or force may be necessary, causing the ethically sound to impose measures on the transgressor which can be equal and opposite to the transgression. Once this is in motion, the means of applying justice (reciprocal or punitive) can determine if justice is being applied ethically. Also the means of keeping score, chronologically and by measure can be difficult, so applications of force can quickly spiral out of control.

All that said, the basis for being able to derive ethical truth is relatively straight forward.

Deriving Ethical Truth

Assuming you and your debate partner have sufficient levels of IQ & EQ (not mentally ill in a manner to render ethical judgement impaired i.e. psychopathy, etc.), and are not too skewed by cultural influences (not a religious or political zealot, etc.) then using the simple basic question of ethics, “How would I like it if that was done to me?” And asking this question in terms of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity will allow you to derive the correct ethical conclusions.

If you can keep an otherwise rational thinker outside of the magical thinking realm, you stand off chance of getting them to see eye to eye with you on ethical matters.