Playing the Devil's Advocate: A Social Experiment

Ever heard someone say "Of course climate change is an existential threat to humanity, everybody knows that!". Really? I ask. Name at least one study or cite some data that indicates what you just said. Not many can. It is unfortunate that many readily believe in truths that are told to them rather than truths which they have tried to test. Questioning told truths is not just a great thought exercise to develop better critical thinking but it also is great way of reversed learning. Rather than explaining to someone why human beings and apes share a common ancestor, you start from the premise that human beings were created in a fraction of a second. From there, one can slowly attempt to explain this idea of creation until he finds that pieces of the puzzle do not fit together, as this theory cannot explain every phenomena that exists currently in the animal kingdom. This process not only erases boredom, but creates a contentious environment where one's curiosity is evoked and there is a feeling of "If not this, then what can it be?!". This exercise not only convinces one of a certain point of view but tests truths for oneself. It creates a firm conviction in oneself with all necessary proofs, while also understanding the other side of the argument. Using this method, I decided to sit in public with the banner titled:

The entire cosmos revolves around the Earth

The idea was to set up a stall, offer free candies and ask people to educate me. I stood by

the false premise that the Sun revolves around the Earth and they would try to prove me

wrong. Two things could be established with this exercise. 1 - People's debating patterns

and what proofs they resort to. 2 - Understanding if people, in general, have the capacity

to test their argument with logic. I was also trying to understand what makes an argument

"valid". Is it purely based on citing a source? Can it be based on one's primary observations?

Does the use of rhetorical statements and logical fallacies help in convincing someone

of your position?

This experiment was set up in Bangalore's Srishti MAHE campus. At first, this seemed

like common sense - Of course, the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth! But how do we

know? This was an opportunity for folks to argue on behalf of the truth they already

know, but can they really prove the truth they believe in? It actually is quite difficult to intuitively come up with a deductive proof of the same. Solar eclipses, seasons and many astronomical events could already be explained using the geocentric model. So what was that one black swan which made the heliocentric model triumph? Hardly 1/10 participants got close to the answer. There were arguments given on solar and lunar eclipses and seasons. However all of this could be explained using the geocentric model. There was this girl who did have me logically trapped. She brought in the argument that how the apparent position of stars changed during the different parts of the year. However, I said this does not undo the fact that the Earth is in the centre. But that's where she caught me. A while ago I had acknowledged the presence of gravity. If I take gravity into account, why would make the stars come near and go away from the Earth? Does the Earth's gravitational force change throughout the year? No. There were folks giving inductive arguments like how other planets also had moons, and so does the Earth. Therefore Earth is just another planet. Yet there was no deductive proof given yet. Eventually, when a whole crowd of people gathered, I gave away the answer. One of the deductive answers was the retrograde of the planet Mars.

One general insight from this social experiment was how people at times can take truths for

granted. Truths that are told by someone in a higher position are believed but never verified.

Granted that nobody has the time to verify astronomical events and carry telescopes. But

the point remains - Truths that aren't readily verifiable hardly remain questioned. It takes

a huge effort to argue for the truth than it is to argue as the devil's advocate.