The Unbeliever
Monday, June 16th, 2008I need to write this down now, before my anger absents me in my sleep, and I wake up tomorrow morning, forgetting and forgiving. This one time I will consider this ability a weakness. (I wish I could hate.)
I got into a argument with someone today. It was not with a Believer, of the sort atheists so often argue with. I can handle them. Not with a Denialist, of the sort PalMD fights. I will learn to handle them. The one I argued with was someone far worse; a wrong yet frustratingly untouchable person—an Unbeliever.
I don’t remember how or what we started arguing about. I wish I had a recording, so I could figure out how we got where we did, so I could express how untouchable this person was in his own words. Instead I must use my own, inadequate words.
Ah, I remember now, how we started. We were talking about school.
He: Why did they teach us how to write research papers? No one reads them, they just skim them. No one checks the sources .
I: But—in the circles I run in—that’s half of Skepticism right there, checking the sources, seeing if the studies they cited are credible or just Joebob reporting that “he walked under a lightbulb and it burned out, so he must have psychic powers to make things burn out” .
He: Studies are meaningless.
I: but peer-reviewed, double-blind, studies by credible authorities in the field…
He: Doesn’t matter.
I: Meta-studies of such studies…!
He: Peer-review, double-blind studies on ADHD; some showed that ADHD didn’t even exist. Even meta-studies.
Did you know that Adderall was originally a weight-loss medication? Then, thirty years later, they relabeled it and marketed it to you.
I: So you’re saying that science is driven by politics?
He: Yes.
I: But that doesn’t change the truth! Once science discovers the reality behind something, it is still the reality, regardless of politics!
I grow weary of transcribing everything that passed between us. Suffice to say, we touched upon many things. More on ADD/ADHD, scientific studies, the politics of science, relativity and quantum mechanics, the nature of facts… (This sounds like many a many-houred discussion, but it was only ten minutes.) I shall skip to the crux of it all:
I: But the raw numbers!…
He: Studies are meaningless because they only present a limited set of numbers. The means are meaningless when the ends, the numbers… That’s the bullshit in science. You can read anything you want into those numbers.
I: But…! [another lecture on the truth of reality]
Eventually, we ended. We had touched upon so many things. At one point I even asked him if this was a post-modernist effort to break down the constructs we operate by in our lives, to acknowledge their nature as mere constructs and then continue on accepting those constructs; or if he was being unbelievably cynical. I don’t remember his answer. All I know is that I lost in the end.
He left after that. I grew so frustrated with him that I shut down and just glared at him, jaw set. He teased me for this and then announced he needed to go home.
I refused to hug him as he made the rounds, saying goodbye and hugging everyone.
“You know he just likes to pick on you,” reassured Mom. I couldn’t articulate myself beyond, “I know. But that still makes him an asshole.” (The effort necessary for this to be “just teasing” verges on the sociopathic. I think I would prefer he be merely cynical.)
How could I have lost? Rather, how could anyone have triumphed against such a person? Him, sitting in Dad’s recliner, toad-fatuous and smug, always knowing how the argument will end. Always knowing exactly what to say to set me off on another futile lecture. There can be no triumph in this.
I fought an unbeliever. And the unbeliever won.
