Critically Thinking About Trolls and Hitchens’ Razor

Given that the purpose of this blog is to open dialogue and encourage critical thinking, regular readers know that I welcome and encourage commentary, queries, and recommendations. So, with that, I was happy to receive notification last week that multiple new comments were left on my recent post about the Mandela Effect. Unfortunately, the comments were all from the same individual, based on conspiracy theories, replying to previous comments on the post, each about very different topics, each more nonsensical than the last. Though the comments were phrased as questions, these word acrobatics weren’t questions at all. The previous commenters on this post and I were being baited.

I was left with a decision to make—a decision I did not take lightly. I could delete the comments or leave them up and refute each. If I decided to delete them, the person’s dangerously misinformed comments would be gone and I would no longer have to worry about their propagation on my blog. However, by doing this, would I be in some way hypocritical? Here I am encouraging open debate—yet, at the same time, denying an individual (no matter how misinformed) an opportunity to learn from others. So, I played the potential scenarios out in my head. In the first, I delete the comments and potentially feel hypocritical or receive negative feedback thereafter. In the second, I take the time to explain why each comment is incorrect. The second scenario doesn’t seem so difficult, does it? However, the problem here is the nature of the comments—though they were not rudely phrased, there was something about them—"baiting," as I previously mentioned. If I were to answer, what would the subsequent responses be like?

Of course, I cannot see into the future and predict the responses; but let’s consider the context for a moment. If someone who does not agree with what you wrote or what your commenters wrote seeks you out in a public forum asking you to enlighten them on an array of very diverse topics through a series of seemingly unrelated posts, common sense might probably urge you to exercise caution, right? Well, that’s what happened to me. But, let’s not be too cynical either. Maybe, this was a genuine search for information or perspective.

On the other hand, it doesn’t hurt to be skeptical and, like I said, there was a good chance that I was being baited—it didn’t matter how well I refuted the claims, the argument(s) would likely go back-and-forth. Now, that’s not to say that arguments that go back-and-forth aren’t fruitful either; rather, through examination of this specific context, I judged the situation based on the manner in which these comments were made, which gave me the impression that regardless of with what I responded, my argument would fall on deaf ears. That is, not only would the conspiracy theorist not change their position (again, I’m speculating here, but reasonably so, I think; e.g. see my recent piece on conspiracy theories); but, I would have also provided them a platform—on my critical thinking blog, of all places—to spread their nonsense. Even if I won the argument, I’d lose by having provided them this platform. So, I chose to delete the posts and risked feeling like a hypocrite.

So, do I feel like a hypocrite now? No… and that’s the point of this piece.

I frequently mention on this blog that it’s difficult to change people’s minds—even people who think reasonably a vast majority of the time. It’s easy for emotion to creep into one’s thoughts, no matter how critical a thinker they are generally. Part of critical thinking is over-riding emotion and intuitive judgment during the thinking process. However, if you’re peddling nonsense that has no genuine evidential-basis, emotion and bias are probably the only things driving your thought; so, it’s highly unlikely that you’re open to changing your mind in this context. That’s why I don’t feel like a hypocrite—because, though people sometimes claim that they want to engage in dialogue, they aren’t actually open to opposing ideas or learning anything that disconfirms their beliefs. When it comes to engaging others in argumentation, you need to evaluate whether or not it’s worth your time and effort. If the person is open to learning and potentially changing their mind, great—engage. If not, then maybe it’s a waste of your time.

The epistemological razor, Hitchens’ Razor, has been mentioned to me quite a bit over the years. According to Christopher Hitchens (hence Hitchens’ Razor), “what can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.” I always thought of this recommendation as a bit of a cop-out, the reason being that, if you have critically thought about a topic, then you have considered the evidence; so, if you are among the audience of someone who makes a statement about said topic or questions it, then is there not some form of obligation to correct them as accurately as possible (i.e. with evidence)?

I would have always said "yes"; however, my view on that has changed over the years. If an argument that has been presented to you lacks a credible evidence base, do you really need to respond with critically considered evidence—do you need to engage it at all? My experience dealing with conspiracy theorists, like the one I describe in this post, has helped evolve my perspective on Hitchens’ Razor. If it will be a waste of time trying to change someone’s mind—if little is to be gained from such engagement—then, don’t bother. That is, dismiss it without evidence. Again, if there is nothing to be gained from presenting your conclusions—if they’re to fall on deaf ears—then why bother? Indeed, trying to debunk misinformation often "backfires"; for example, it may further reinforce the misinformation (Cook & Lewandowsky, 2011); and as previously indicated, provides a platform for that misinformation.

I chose to delete those comments on my blog and, as someone who values open dialogue, I do not see this as hypocrisy. Rather, I saw the action as a common-sense manoeuvre in removing a platform for misinformation and anticipating the futile endeavour of arguing with someone who isn’t open to changing their mind. Have I made too many assumptions in this context? Perhaps, yes; and if so, then that is my failure in thought—a failure in which my skepticism might have crossed over into the realm of cynicism. But that’s "if"; and with that, this experience, as well as other similar encounters in my recent past, has helped me to re-examine Hitchens’ Razor as an epistemological principle and continue to consider how (and when) critical thinkers can best attempt to debunk misinformation. Though it may not seem like it from this post, I am indeed open to and welcome comments, queries, and recommendations!