Read up on 'insert book here'-argument

[NecroCommie]

I ran up on this "moderate" christian in the net who continuously slurred insults, told me to "read up on philosophy", and claimed atheism and empirical science as "pseudo-science". All this while claiming theology and religious studies to be objective on the matter, and how I just didn't understand christian theology.

Now, I could handle him as much as one can handle a stubborn asshole, but this did raise the issue of his argument. "Read up this and this book". How do you see this to be a rational argument? Because I simply couldn't say that "you cant tell me to read!" Obviously studying is important, yet the argument is still hardly constructive.

The reason I am bringing this up because I have even witnessed this in Revleft. I do understand how frustrating it is when the capitalists assume they don't need to know anything about marxist theory and they can still impose judgment upon it. Still we should think this from their perspective, and aim at the increase of their knowledge on the subject.

What do you see to be the correct way to handle "read up on ***"-argument?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well this is usually a dodge or deflection, you might try: "Why don't you summarize the main point" or "What is it that this book would explain to me".

I try not to deffer to an author or book when arguing with people but sometimes it gets difficult. The only time I think "go read" or "go look it up" works is on statistics or facts, not concepts. If someone doesn't believe that the US is imperialist and you tell them "Go read some Lenin" then it's useless and they probably will never do it anyway. On the other hand if you are talking to someone about US imperialism and when you mention military interventions like in Cuba and the Philippines but they simply refuse to believe you, then "go look it up" or "go read a fucking book sometime you poor poor victim of public school US History classes" might be a proper response (ok, not the second option).

[NecroCommie]

Well this is usually a dodge or deflection, you might try: "Why don't you summarize the main point" or "What is it that this book would explain to me".

I try not to deffer to an author or book when arguing with people but sometimes it gets difficult. The only time I think "go read" or "go look it up" works is on statistics or facts, not concepts. If someone doesn't believe that the US is imperialist and you tell them "Go read some Lenin" then it's useless and they probably will never do it anyway. On the other hand if you are talking to someone about US imperialism and when you mention military interventions like in Cuba and the Philippines but they simply refuse to believe you, then "go look it up" or "go read a fucking book sometime you poor poor victim of public school US History classes" might be a proper response (ok, not the second option).
Where as I do not claim that your advise is not useful, this certain individual simply stated that he didn't need to summarize anything to me, since philosophians and theologians already had it right, and there was solid "proof" of god's existence (more books to back up that one.)

But yeah, I think Revlefter's too should sometime start reflecting upon this matter. Too many a newbie is told to take a book in the learning section.

What I also started to think during the night (yes, I am a hopeless rational) is that telling to read a book is a somehow elitist. The one saying that clearly thinks that he/she is not needed to explain divine truhts to lesser men. What also came into my mind is that if you cannot defend the book without having someone else to read it, that means that you yourself have not grasped it really well. If you had, you might just present the claims made in that book yourself.

[JazzRemington]

Isn't that a logical fallacy? Or does it have to be predicated on the idea that if I were to read a book one is suggesting I would come tot he same conclusions as the person suggesting the book?

[mikelepore]

Any person who recommends any book or writer should be able to summarize the conclusion in thirty words or less. To recommend reading the book instead of replying to a question or augument is just laziness. People should first give a direct answer, and then recommend the book for more complete understanding.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I think it's important to evaluate how reasonable someone is when debating. If you discover they are quite ridiculous in their attitudes, it's important not to take them too seriously.

I suppose it depends on your personality what options you have. These people often rely on strong tones and confidence to imply they know what they are talking about. I usually combat that style by not taking them seriously, mocking their views, etc.

Communicating that you won't fall for their conversion techniques will leave them feeling lost and try to fall to common ground, usually by bringing in reasonable arguments. Then you've got them where you want them.

Of course, some people will just leave frustrated with you, in theory. I've never had it happen, though. Most people want to validate their own beliefs by convincing you, and they are actually quite insecure in their perspectives whether they realize it or not.

I approach religion like a teacher informing a student how they are mistaken. People find it incredibly demeaning, and I could care less. It's the best way of dealing with religion that I've found so far.

[Jimmie Higgins]

simply stated that he didn't need to summarize anything to me, since philosophians and theologians already had it right, and there was solid "proof" of god's existence (more books to back up that one.)Yeah, if they are saying, "I don't need to take up your argument because Book X explains how God exists" then it's a dodge. Either they are not sincere in wanting to debate this with you or they are basically saying "Read Book X [because I actually don't know how to counter you argument but somehow I know it's wrong]". Or, as you said...

if you cannot defend the book without having someone else to read it, that means that you yourself have not grasped it really well. If you had, you might just present the claims made in that book yourself.

If a new member on Revleft said what is imperialism, I don't think people should just say: "Read Lenin". I think the better way would be to briefly outline what they think imperialism is and then say, "well if you want to get a really detailed explaination, it's best to go to the sources of the theories of imperialism such as Book X, Y, or Z"

Of course that's usually the difference between Leftists and some hierarchical world-views. For the most part radicals WANT other people around them to understand a critical view of the world. For the most part, right-wingers or conservative evangelicals, don't want people to UNDERSTAND the world, but to accept the staus quo as infallible. So they will counter logicical arguments with things like: "Well it's God's will" or "It's tradition" or "It goes against 'the American character' to question or want to replace X policy".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, I have used this ploy many times, and will continue to do so. I have found that when I 'summarise' a certain book (and how can you do that in a way that isn't either too long or which fails to summarise it effectively since it's too short?), it almost invariably serves as a substitute for reading it.

If someone doesn't want to read a given book, fine. But, I never object to others telling me to read this or that book, since (if I have the time, if I can can find a copy, and if I'm interested in the subject) I'm keen to learn.

[NecroCommie]

A new dodge spotted!

Someone just told me to: "do my homework" :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And what's wrong with being thorough?

[NecroCommie]

Nothing, but in a middle of a debate that answer is hardly satisfying or valid. You can't expect me to "do my homework" in a matter of minutes. And that is exactly why intellectual dwarfs use that defence, because they don't expet you to "do your homework". They expect you to answer something like: "I can't do that now" (you can't), so that they could bask in the presumed admiration of spectators while declaring: "See?! The communist does not even want to learn!"

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

If they are going to play the "immature" card, send them to the Internet. You've got online research in a matter of seconds. Plus, there are plenty of atheists would would be more than happy to crush their arguments.

That being said, you really need to turn on the smugness in my opinion. You're not having a debate as much having a contest in sophistry. They are trying to parade around and seem educated to win a debate. It's how most people argue.

I'm a rude and impatient person, though. I'd be bringing up IQ scores amongst the religious, theories that religion is a psychiatric issue, the role of religious believers in implicitly causing harm. It's also alright to lie when talking to devoutly religious people. If they ask "could God exist, you say no." You can't give them anything because even the slightest concession will make them think they've won and reinforce their delusions.