Ask Good Questions -- Conversational Toolbox

Ask good questions.

Although it may seem counterintuitive, the art of asking good questions is an essential conversational tool and debate tactic. The majority of people are already in the habit of asking questions in conversations, like a simple "How are you?" or "How did your job interview feel?" The main focus of this article will be to explore the art of asking good questions in a debate situation.

Often times we make the subconscious correlation between who is talking more and who is "winning" an argument. This is seen frequently in politics, where the group that can out-shout and out-chant the other assumes a sort of dominance or victory over a topic of discussion. It is not uncommon in the scientific world for credible researchers and authors to be silenced for proposing and arguing for the existence of an intelligent designer. So how does asking a question help you? How does handing the mic over make your point stronger or more convincing?

The answer lies in the purpose of asking questions in the first place.

Questions:

1. Clarify your opponent's position.
2. Prevent you from misunderstanding their logical process and pathway to a conclusion (which includes premises, arguments, and assumptions).
3. Can expose inconsistencies and foundational flaws in faulty arguments.

To address the first point: one of the most annoying things that can happen to you in a debate is when your argument is misunderstood and twisted by your opponent. So? Don't do it to your opponent! Show your opponent that you respect them enough to put the intellectual effort in to grasp their position. Too often a position is reduced to only the conclusion. This is only partly true: a person's position includes everything from the reasons they have, the logical connections they make, and the syllogisms and assumptions that generate their conclusion.

A person's position is the product of many steps, and the only way to truly understand (and eventually break down) someone's argument is to take the time to learn all those parts.

And that's where asking questions comes into play! For example, let's suppose you're debating someone about whether or not God exists, and Bill takes the position that "God doesn't exist," what does that really mean? The mistake would be to plant your feet and respond, "Well, God does exist." Notice how ridiculously ambiguous both of these positions are: the lack of detail and evidence of complex thought often signals the need for well-structured questions. For example:

Bill: God doesn't exist.

You: Fair--how did you come to that conclusion?

See where this could go? This debate could go in one of any dozen ways! Here are just a few possible responses:

• If there was a God, bad things wouldn't happen in this world.
• There is no need for a God, because Darwinian evolution explains the existence of the natural world without one.
• I can't sense God, so why should I believe in something that I can't observe?

My point is NOT to give you a grocery list of every possible argument out there that could occur. I want to demonstrate how suddenly we're talking about something many times more specific than our starting position: "God doesn't exist." By asking the simple question, "How did you come to that conclusion?" you have effectively forced your opponent to be explicit and expose the behind-the-scenes premises and ideas that led to their decision to take their general position. This allows you to directly address them and select a highly specific position that meets the immediate and unique situation.

To expound on this concept, let's take the second example response:

Bill: God doesn't exist.

You: Fair--how did you come to that conclusion?

Bill: There is no need for a God, because Darwinian evolution explains the existence of the natural world without one.

This is where good debating requires effort. You need to pay close attention to small details: Bill is still being relatively vague here. He doesn't address other existing theories for the existence of the natural world, so you have more than one option: address how he conveniently left out that there are other competing theories for the existence of the natural world or address the topic of the validity of Darwinism as an explanation for the existence of the natural world. These may seem similar, but they will fundamentally alter the trajectory of the conversation.

The best point in this situation would probably be to address how Bill left out over competing theories: if Darwinism is his position, then that means he had to have logically determined that Darwinism is the best explanation out of all the explanations proposed. You see where this is going? Bill will now have to defend and justify how he came to the conclusion that Darwinism is a better explanation than, say, Intelligent Design Theory. Often times this discussion leads down the road of either forcing them to contradict themselves or at least acknowledge that Intelligent Design actually offers a valid approach to explaining the existence of the natural world.

It's important to note that this does not necessarily mean you will convert Bill to abandon his beliefs and join your camp. What it accomplishes is rock Bill's boat a bit. He now must reconcile this idea that competing beliefs can be argued logically that disagree with his beliefs. This doesn't always create converts, but that's fine: the purpose of debate is to civilly exchange ideas and expose participants to the immense quantity of nuance found in many controversial topics.

I think it's important to note how powerful details are in these questions, and even more important how to respond to the answer to your question. Quite unexpectedly, you're suddenly in the driver's seat, directing the course of the conversation and placing the heat on the field of your choice. This comes with a responsibility of course: choose wisely. Don't pick a fight over an unproductive and ultimately pointless disagreement. A horrible response to Bill's comment would be, "Well, Darwinism has been debunked already, so God exists." Now you would be engaging in the same dreadful ambiguity and lack of detail that was the exigence for you asking the question in the first place!

Exposing inconsistencies and logical flaws is a common side effect of asking good questions. It's important to distinguish between debates focused around universal truths and subjective ideas. Political policy debates, for example, are NOT debates focused around universal truths most the time. There is no singular correct answer to the question "Is raising taxes good?" If you take the side of agreement or disagreement, you aren't siding with truth or not truth. It's subjective. It's not based around universal truths. However, arguing the existence of God is discussing a universal truth, because God either does exist or doesn't exist, and the outcome has great consequence.

I make this distinction now to set up this final point: if you're in a debate over a universal truth, and you know you're right, it will be able to stand up against scrutiny. If your position truly is the truth, then nothing can stand against it or knock it down. On the other hand, false positions will crumble under scrutiny, because they are, well...false. Darwinists must reconcile conflicting ideas: for example, evolution requires existing things in order to evolve from, but it's been empirically proven that the universe was once at a zero point, where there was absolutely no matter of any kind. Another contradiction that arises is that Darwinian evolution requires millions of years for enough changes to occur to produce new types of living organisms, but the Cambrian Explosion demands an explanation from Darwinists as to how the diversity of animal life exploded within only a very brief geological time frame.

So...

Go out there and ask some questions! Ask good questions. Have fruitful conversations. Learn something. And I'll see you next time.

~Caleb Alons

Everyone Recognizes Snuck Premises

Hello. Today we're discussing snuck premises

What is a snuck premise? Well, I am not a logician or an expert in the field, but I do know the basic understanding of the snuck premise. A snuck premise is a proposition somebody implies without directly saying it.

Maybe you caught on already.

If not, don't be discouraged. It can be a little confusing to understand at first, so I came prepared. The title of this article contains a snuck premise! The statement that "everyone recognizes snuck premises" sneaks in an assumed, but unstated claim that everyone actually knows what a snuck premise is! Snuck premises happen all the time, regardless of the person.

Here's an example:

When asked why he doesn't believe in abortion, Ben Shapiro (well-known lawyer and political debater) responded, "I do not believe in killing babies."

For now, regardless of your political position on this issue, take this statement at face value. The snuck premise is subtle because of the wording. Shapiro is sneaking in the premise that abortion is killing, and also the premise that what is being aborted as a human. Reread the wording of his response to catch both snuck premises.

The reason this is an effective device is that the statements "abortion is killing" and "the thing aborted is a human" are not directly spoken, but because of their implication, the conclusion follows suit of what the person believes without the opponent necessarily catching what was implied.

NOTE: this is different than assuming your position is the truth right from the beginning.

A snuck premise is a rhetorical device that is generally used to persuade somebody of an idea. It is important to see that snuck premises are NOT twisting the words of the opponent. Employing a snuck premise does NOT mean changing the meanings of the opponent's words and it does NOT mean assuming everything you say is true.

Employing a snuck premise means making a statement that is derived of unspoken, but implied, premises.

This still a little confusing and possibly in the gray-zone?

Let's suppose Joe believes that the true football should be played with the ol' pigskin and not by kicking a ball around. Let's suppose further that Bob wants to come to a conclusion that uses a statement Joe disagrees with, but doesn't want to directly say it to him. In other words, Bob wants to create a snuck premise...for this example it could be "American football is just a ploy to make millions."

Bob could say, "European football is better because isn't there just to make a buck."

This is a sort of silly argument in the first place, but nevertheless, we can still analyze it. Bob succeeds in sneaking in the premise that American football is there just to "make a buck." NOTE: the premise that European football is better than American football is NOT a snuck premise, because he directly says so.

So, the next time you're in a friendly conversation or debate or verbal war --

watch out for the snuck premises. Don't fear them...just be aware of their presence and gauge a proper response if need be.

Thanks for reading, and I'll see you next time!
~Caleb A

The Abortion Question (Discussion)

Hi, readers, who are probably long gone.

I'm back (58473 weeks late) with a conversation I had with a friend of mine. I have begun to avoid the word debate when it comes to actually having conversations about topics that are controversial, because as soon as you crack that word out of the bag, everyone goes into this odd "I-am-right-you-are-an-inferior-human-with-inferior-mind" mode, so instead, I propose to have a simple, civil conversation.

Since I'm too busy to keep up a weekly blog, I will use this blog to post some conversations I've had with others, as well as additional content if I have time. Hope you enjoy.

(Blue text indicates the things I said and the red text indicates the things the other said)

THE FOLLOWING HAS NOT BEEN TRICK EDITED OR CUT AND PASTED. THE WAY IT IS POSTED IS THE EXACT ORDER OF THE CONVERSATION.

So, I currently believe that abortion is murder and is therefore wrong. I truly understand this is sometimes a touchy subject, so can we both agree to avoid all emotional arguments? 

Please feel free to change my mind.

Ok, so I'm pretty sure both of us can agree that a woman should have access to a safe abortion in the case of rape or incest (please correct me if you don't agree).

I realize that adoption is an option for those seeking abortion, however, there are currently hundreds of thousands of children in foster care. outlawing abortions would only increase this number, as some women feel they're not ready to be a mother/the child may grow up impoverished/the father is abusive/etc. and even if the government were to make abortion illegal, they would only be outlawing safe abortions. When someone doesn't have legal access to something, it's basically inevitable that they'll obtain it illegally. Unsafe abortions could kill the mother. On that note, some women seek abortions because of a medical condition that could kill them at birth/they know the baby will be a stillbirth. I can definitely elaborate on anything if you have questions.

If at any time I sound rude, let me know. It's just hard for me to articulate sometimes.

I am glad to start by finding common ground. With no offense, I disagree that all women should have access to legal abortion. But let's try to find something to agree on. Such as the definition of abortion. How shall we define abortion in this conversation?

Let's classify it as the termination of an embryo or fetus 0-5 months into pregnancy.

May I ask a few questions?

Absolutely.

By "termination," would it be fair to define that as "kill"?

I probably wouldn't be able to tell you that without bias because I am very liberal, but I believe, since the embryo/fetus has not existed outside the womb, terminating it inside the womb would not be the same as killing it outside the womb.

Is an embryo/fetus alive?

I think that, since it hasn't technically existed outside the womb, it is not yet alive. I guess it's all about perspective though.

Shall we agree upon the premise that the embryo/fetus is alive?

For the sake of argument, sure. I feel confident in my views and I think I can defend myself well if need be.

Is the fetus a human?

A developing human.

So the fetus is a human?

Like I said before, the fetus has not emerged from the womb and is therefore not prepared for life at the time of abortion (abortion generally does not work after the fifth month of pregnancy).

I understand. Yes or no question: is the fetus a human being? It's not a hard question, and I would appreciate finishing this thought before moving on.

Just because it's not fully developed at the time of abortion, I would say no.

Ok. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so tell me if you agree with this: a fetus isn't a human because of its level of development.

Technically, it is of the human species. However, due to its level of development, I don't consider it to be a human.

Ok, so you believe that a fetus is not a human because of its level of development?

Yes.

Question: being serious and not sarcastic, do you believe I'm a human?

Yes, because you have developed. No fetus is really human in such a rudimentary state of being.

You just told me you believe a fetus is not a human because of its level of development, but at the same time you say that I'm a human being, yet I have not fully developed as a person.

Tell me, if a newborn baby is considered a human, despite the fact that it has not yet fully developed, then why isn't a fetus considered a human? A fetus is a less developed baby.

Ok, so what I'm trying to say is that a fetus is not yet an independent human and subsists on the mother for nutrients to grow until the time of birth. While you are not fully developed, you are independent from the womb, actively use your senses, and have your own thoughts.

Just to clarify, you believe a fetus isn't a human because of its level of independency?

Yes.

I daresay we're getting too hung up on this, can you move to the next question?

May I quickly explain why this is crucial to the discussion?

It's because the entire question of abortion is whether or not it is right, it moral. And to know that, we must define abortion. And to know whether or not abortion is murder, we have to know if the fetus is human or not. You see, if the fetus IS a human, then abortion should be illegal because it is killing a person: murder.

So to continue, you said that a fetus isn't a human because it is not independent on a mother for survival. Well, born babies depend upon their mothers to feed them, nurture them, and protect them. And so the level of dependency of a human has nothing to do with being a human. Take special needs people for example. Some people cannot physically feed themselves or do anything without aid, but we don't take away their humanity. So why should we say it's right to take away a fetuses humanity just because it depends on a mother?

During the time that an embryo or a fetus could be aborted, it's more like a cluster of cells than a premature baby. I don't know about you, but I believe there is a very distinguishable ethical difference.

Scientifically speaking, the moment that a sperm cell penetrates an egg cell, (moment of conception) is accepted as the moment that "a cluster of cells" becomes a real human being. You didn't become human when you were born. Nobody was. Everybody became their own individual person, with their own individual genetics a the moment of conception. So it is not fair to call embryos "nonliving clusters of cells" when scientifically speaking, they are humans.

I'd like to say that you're one of the few people I've discussed this with who truly believes that a drop of activated semen combined with an egg cell is immediately a baby. Not to put it bluntly, that's just what I've learned from countless debates on this topic.

At this point, it was late, and the person I was talking with needed to go to bed. I decided to end with one more thought:

When does that "cluster of cells" that are nonliving become a living human? When does the embryo become a human and no longer considered extraneous tissue?

I was very interested in continuing the discussion, but the latter expressed disinterest, and so I let it drop. Guys listen. One important key to being a good influential speaker: LISTEN TO THEM. TRY TO UNDERSTAND THEM. AND BE RESPECTFUL. People will always disagree on something, so there's no use feeling personally attacked or get defensive if your opponent wants to stop.

BY THE WAY... oops. I forgot about Textbook Tales. But heh, SIKE I WILL be completing that series, but not on a weekly schedule. School is my number one priority right now, and that means I don’t really post or write during school weeks. So... watch out for holiday breaks….I’ll be busy 😉

Thanks for reading, guys.
~Caleb A

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, my dear readers!

If you haven't already been dazzled by the amazing Christmas décor and flashy new color scheme *cough*

Merry Christmas everyone! Yes, I told you that I wasn't going to post in December...but. You're reading this so. Why not?

Family and friends and celebration and presents and Christmas trees and Christmas lights and snow ball fights and pumpkin pie and sugar and more sugar....

I think we begin to forget what Christmas is about. Just taking one look at the word "Christmas" and tell me what you see.

Christ

This may seem extremely obvious, but have you noticed that many times "Christmas" is called "holidays" and even to the extent of cutting out "Christ" with a big, fat "X".

I implore you this season not to simply say "Happy holidays!" (disclaimer: not that that's a sin, ok?) but to include the name of the reason for the season. Yes, I just quoted a super cliché phrase. Do I care? Of course I do! I want everyone to know why Christmas is even a holiday...why Christmas is in the first place.

Well, enough heavy, so-called "deep" conversations, and let's enjoy our time celebrating the birth of our savior Jesus Christ with family and fellowship.

And as always....through every season.....thanks for reading and I'll see youuuuu next time!
Bye!
~Caleb

Stupid vs. Clever (2)

Let's hear it for December!! One final headlong crash into 2018.

I would like to say here right at the beginning that this is possibly the last article of the year 2017. I might post during Christmas break but who knows...holiday seasons are the most crowded. I might post a holiday fun thingy that doesn't do too much deep thinking for fun, but anyways...time for Stupid vs. Clever (2)! *intro music* *lucasfilm*. Sorry, but Star Wars fever has sprung. Okieee.

On Tuesday, I used pieces of paper to talk about how we can detect design and part of our intuition is recognizing design. I explained that we even have this trait because God made us in His image, and he made us to be creators. This only makes sense, since God made everything, that something made in his image would also create.

Creations must be created.

Since this has the chance of being the last article of the year, I decided to do something new and fun. I encourage you to do this during break if you want to.

Crumpled paper and origami cranes are all cool and simple, but how about something a little more tangible? Yes, yes, paper is "tangible" but how about...*Head scratch*

I have created a super profound, amazing, mind blowing, Need-a-Ph.D experiment. What is it about? Well, it is a simple demonstration that unguided processes simply cannot do the work of something clever...stupid vs. clever. (I'm amazed and simply admire the art of sarcasm...and alliteration).

Experiment

Supplies:

1. Any LEGO set (preferably not super massive).
2. Instruction pamphlet.
3. Clear, space (counter, table, solid floor, preferably not carpet).
4. Blindfold (or simple honesty).
5. Yourself (or a friend to laugh at).
6. Optional: camera, or device that can take pictures.

Procedure:

1. Prepare a clear open space.
2. Using the LEGO set and instruction pamphlet, construct the set as directed.
3. Snap a quick photo or just admire your work.
4. Take apart the construction to completion (don't leave pieces connected).
5. Burn your instructions (just kidding, but the point is to not have any guidance).
6. Blindfold yourself, or just be honest and close your eyes.
7. Use the pieces and randomly construct whatever the heck fate allows.
8. Snap another photo (or just cringe at your "creation).
9. Take apart the...thing you built.
10. Blindfold yourself again.
11. This time, use the pieces and purposefully attempt to build what it is supposed to be.
12. Snap a photo.
13. Observe results.

Was that fun? Well…. Probably until you had to build it blindfolded with the intention of trying to achieve the end goal.

Here is what I want to illustrate:

Pretend that the first time you built the set (without blindfold and instructions) represents God creating the world, and everything in it.
Pretend that the second time you built the set (with blindfold and without purpose) represents Darwinian evolution...randomness...purposeless...no end goal in sight.
Pretend that the third time you built the set (with blindfold but with purpose) represents the idea that God used evolution to create the world.
Pretend that the set itself is you.
Pretend the instruction manual is "guided processes."
Pretend that the blindfold represented "blind, unguided processes."
Pretend that you are the driving force of each process.

Now let's take a step back and think on this.

You didn't just appear. You were created. But how?

Well, if you completed the experiment, I think you can easily say without a doubt, that the best explanation and only plausible way you (LEGO) would have been created was when you had a guided process (instructions) and an end goal in mind...you (LEGO).

Nobody in their right mind could agree with this statement, however:

"The best explanation for my existence (LEGO) is that a blind, unguided process (being blindfolded) and having no end goal or purpose (randomly constructing in the second build)."

Clearly, I just pointed out the simple absurdity of Darwinian evolution. As you can see, your intuition is enough. You don't need to go knee-deep in studies to be able to see this.

But why would I have the third build in the experiment? What could this be signifying?

There is a theory that God exists, but he used evolution to create the world...a kind of deistic god. If you believed this, then you would say something like this:

"The best explanation for my existence (LEGO) is that there is a God (you, the blindfolded builder), but he used a blind, unguided process (blindfolded) to try to achieve something with purpose (you, struggling to build the set blindfolded with the purpose of doing it correctly)."

The simplicity of this analogy/experiment goes to show you that your intuition is right all along. Yes, you're internal thoughts that there must be a reason for life other than unguided processes were correct.

Now...in case you were wondering..... I actually performed this experiment and would like to show you a couple clips and pictures.

Disassembled set

Build 1 (with instructions and no blindfold)

Disassembled again...

 

Build 2 (no instructions, unguided)

 

More torture for LEGO pros

AAAND more

 

(note: I really tried, but by golly, I rage quitted trying to do the third build...hence no photos)

I really hope you enjoyed this final hurrah for 2017.

I will be back in January of 2018 and start up a new series (I'm super excited for) called "Textbook Tales." Have a wonderful Christmas with family and friends, and a happy New Year!

~Caleb

Stupid vs. Clever (1)

Stupid vs. clever? What kind of unfair battle has been pitched?

Hello, everyone! I did NOT post on Friday, because I was on break, and enjoying time with family...and well playing endless rounds of ping pong and Vince Guaraldi. Sorry if I forgot to mention this.

This final week of November (and first day of December), I will be explaining how we can detect design and purpose with our "intuition" that was discussed previously. These articles were extremely fun to write, and I hope you enjoy them as much as I did!

Let's look at two pieces of paper:

 

Now. Before I continue, try thinking of all the differences between these two pieces of paper. Yes, I know I'm asking a pretty simple question...but truly, what makes the first paper any different than the second? I mean...considering all of the similarities (they're both paper, both are folded, both are shapes, etc.), what makes these two papers drastically different (if they even are)?

 

Here are a few obvious differences:

 

1. Appearance: one takes no distinct, recognizable shape (other than "crumpled").

2. Design: one takes no design in mind...simply a matter of random folds created by crushing.

3. How it was created: one obviously took a few seconds, while another was carefully, purposefully constructed.

 

In essence, we could say that the first picture is "stupid" and the second, "clever." But why? Why? They look a little different. So what?

 

Well, God made humans in His image. This means that we have

 

1. Moral sense. (ethics)

2. A spiritual, non-physical side of us. (physical vs. spiritual)

3. A recognition of purpose.

 

We are creators. Humans are makers. Humans have invented, built, and drawn up amazingly creative tools, plans, and more. We are builders. This is built into us, (God created everything...including us) and so when we see something that was purposefully designed and crafted, we recognize that something did it and that it wasn't a result of something stupid, or random, or unguided.

 

When we look upon the crumpled up piece of paper, we see...a crumpled piece of paper. We see something purely physical in a completely "stupid" form.

When we look upon the paper bird, we see something completely different. Our creative side takes us for a ride and we immediately, unconsciously determine that it was created.

 

Creations are created. Hence...the verb "to create."

 

Just in case you're curious, here are the instruction pamphlets to each of the pictures:

 

= smoosh paper in hands, or underfoot for 5 seconds.

              =        

 

Again, I'd like to point out that if you didn't have an end goal in sight (the shape of a bird), and didn't do precise steps in a precise order, you would maybe get a crumpled piece of paper. One more note: even if you had all the correct steps, but they were randomly jumbled, you still wouldn't get a bird. You'd get a folded piece of paper of unrecognizable form.

 

I hope you enjoyed this article, and I would definitely never forget to give credit to Douglas Axe for the analogy. I tried coming up with a better one, but his was so simple, I decided to share it with you. (I also love paper art).

 

Aaaaand as always, thanks for reading and I'll see you...next time 😉 .

~Caleb

"Common" Science

Happy Thanksgiving!
...two days in advance
...and if you celebrate Thanksgiving

Before the mobs of confusion dramatically swoop us off our feet and take us into the land of hyperbole, let's turn our focus on the idea that apologetics is the opposite of what it is commonly portrayed as.

"Common science," (as discussed in Douglas Axe's book, Undeniable) is what it is. As Socrates would say, "I said what I said." Let's first talk about how apologetics is viewed in society. For one, it is not super likely to be walking down the street with gobs of people who can defend their faith. Apologetics has been given a sterotype, or label, or being "nerdy" or "not for them" or even simply "unnecessary." Imagine having two bubbles...a "normal-people" bubble and a "need a Ph. D" bubble. Many times, society places apologetics into the "need a Ph. D" bubble. This makes the subject feel distant and unneeded in our lives.

Let me tell you this: not only is apologetics super important...it is super simple. Don't believe me?

Last Friday, we discussed how everyone as an intuition that there is a supreme being. A god. For Christians, that being is God. For others, this could be other gods or whatever. You don't even have to be a Christian to believe that there must be a supreme being.

Today, I'll discuss how apologetics is not a challenging topic...but rather a simple, common topic. Common science.

If you have Undeniable, I greatly recommend quickly reading through his discussion on common science.

Let me encourage you to not shy away from defending your faith. It's not difficult. Why? Because God has given every single one of us an excellent defense: our intuition. What's more is that you're on the winning side. Don't be afraid to mess up. If you put your mind to it, you can make a difference.

Our country needs people to start speaking up and actively defending the faith. My goal through this blog is to help educate the general public in simple ways, "challenging" topics.

Thanks for reading, and as always, I'll see you next time!
~Caleb