4 ms·

I think it's useful to differentiate between "arguments" and "debates". An "argument" is a meeting of the minds, grounded in mutual respect, in which each side

I think it's useful to differentiate between "arguments" and "debates". An "argument" is a meeting of the minds, grounded in mutual respect, in which each side has an opposing a priori belief that they might be willing to change. A "debate" is a zero-sum game in which each person arguing is trying to change the mind of some third party^1. People often call interactions "arguments" when, in fact, they are actually "debates". Doubele-cruxing can be useful in arguments, but the audience of a debate should approach any crux with incredulity. Anyone with half a mind toward "winning" a double-cruxed debate would choose an untenable position as their "crux". A practiced debater will find the scientific concensus and then work backwards to a crux. Not the other way around. Then they get the rhetorical benefits of acting "reasonable" without actually giving up anything useful to their opponent. In fact, if their opponent is clueless enough to accept the crux, they've just won the game. And if their opponent complains, well now the opponent is "meta-debating" which is apparently bad thing (and is a bad thing anyways because it makes you sound like an egghead). So, double-cruxing is a great strategy for an argument between people who mutually respect one another. But audiences to a debate should be careful about whether they're being hood-winked by a rhetorical trick. In short, a lot of this philosophizing about how to have a good argument really just boils down to "have the right argument with the right person". Two people who respect each other talking about something that both have fluid opinions on rarely devolves into a useless conversation. -- ^1: A debate in which there's no third party present might be called "a waste of time".

Gormisdomai 8y ago
I dislike double cruxing along the lines of debating as a sport too, but I disagree that what you describe in the second half of your comment is a problem, in fact people should be encouraged to do what you describe. The "double" part of double crux means that the crux you choose has to be a crux for both people, i.e. if it's established either way, that alone has to be sufficient to convince both people of the overall argument being true or false. If you pick a crux that is a truly provably untenable position, and it turns out to also be a crux for the other person then they should happily change their mind on seeing the proof. If they don't it's not like they're committed to saying you've "won" against their will or anything, at worst it turns out that the crux they agreed on wasn't really a crux for them after all. At best, they discover that their belief rested on an untenable position. By design it's pretty hard for a malicious actor to play double crux to win without also playing it to discover the truth, so long as they actually choose honest cruxes for themselves (and to some extent, even if they don't).
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  I'm unconvinced. The rhetorical trick is to paint the opponent as unreasonable, pretentious, impractical, etc. if they don't agree with your double-crux. In this case, the resolution of the double-crux is not the strong argument (your opponent would never willinging agree to the double-crux)! The rhetorical characterization of your opponent is the strong argument. Again, it's just something you should watch out for as an audience member. Also, inexperienced debaters will often agree to double-cruxes when they shouldn't because they don't understand the strategy that's being deployed agains them and the double-crux is presented in a "friendly" tone. And once it's deployed they realie that was a stupid thing to agree to. The truth we've discovered is that one of the debaters is inexperienced; we haven't learned anything about the underlying topic. In practice, debates (acdaemic or out in the real world) are almost never searches for truth. Again, as an audience member in an obviously zero-sum debate, I'm extremely skeptical of the double-crux. It's usually a steup for a rhetorical argument or a way of easily beating down an inexperienced person. It's rarely a geniune assertion that this one thing really is the fundamental point of contention. In a friendly, respectful argument designed to search for truth, double-cruxes can be a great tool.
  - justinpombrio 8y ago
    > Again, as an audience member in an obviously zero-sum debate, I'm extremely skeptical of the double-crux. For some context, double-cruxing came out of the rationalist community (specifically CFAR), which commonly refers to persuasive rhetoric as the dark arts. They do not develop tools for use in the dark arts.
justinpombrio 8y ago
> So, double-cruxing is a great strategy for an argument between people who mutually respect one another. That's a good point. The guide on double-cruxing[1] lists "epistemic humility" and "good faith" as pre-requisites for using the technique effectively. [1] http://rationality.org/resources/updates/2016/double-crux http://rationality.org/resources/updates/2016/double-crux

Gormisdomai 8y ago

I dislike double cruxing along the lines of debating as a sport too, but I disagree that what you describe in the second half of your comment is a problem, in fact people should be encouraged to do what you describe. The "double" part of double crux means that the crux you choose has to be a crux for both people, i.e. if it's established either way, that alone has to be sufficient to convince both people of the overall argument being true or false. If you pick a crux that is a truly provably untenable position, and it turns out to also be a crux for the other person then they should happily change their mind on seeing the proof. If they don't it's not like they're committed to saying you've "won" against their will or anything, at worst it turns out that the crux they agreed on wasn't really a crux for them after all. At best, they discover that their belief rested on an untenable position. By design it's pretty hard for a malicious actor to play double crux to win without also playing it to discover the truth, so long as they actually choose honest cruxes for themselves (and to some extent, even if they don't).

throwawayjava 8y ago
I'm unconvinced. The rhetorical trick is to paint the opponent as unreasonable, pretentious, impractical, etc. if they don't agree with your double-crux. In this case, the resolution of the double-crux is not the strong argument (your opponent would never willinging agree to the double-crux)! The rhetorical characterization of your opponent is the strong argument. Again, it's just something you should watch out for as an audience member. Also, inexperienced debaters will often agree to double-cruxes when they shouldn't because they don't understand the strategy that's being deployed agains them and the double-crux is presented in a "friendly" tone. And once it's deployed they realie that was a stupid thing to agree to. The truth we've discovered is that one of the debaters is inexperienced; we haven't learned anything about the underlying topic. In practice, debates (acdaemic or out in the real world) are almost never searches for truth. Again, as an audience member in an obviously zero-sum debate, I'm extremely skeptical of the double-crux. It's usually a steup for a rhetorical argument or a way of easily beating down an inexperienced person. It's rarely a geniune assertion that this one thing really is the fundamental point of contention. In a friendly, respectful argument designed to search for truth, double-cruxes can be a great tool.
- justinpombrio 8y ago
  > Again, as an audience member in an obviously zero-sum debate, I'm extremely skeptical of the double-crux. For some context, double-cruxing came out of the rationalist community (specifically CFAR), which commonly refers to persuasive rhetoric as the dark arts. They do not develop tools for use in the dark arts.

justinpombrio 8y ago

> So, double-cruxing is a great strategy for an argument between people who mutually respect one another. That's a good point. The guide on double-cruxing[1] lists "epistemic humility" and "good faith" as pre-requisites for using the technique effectively. [1] http://rationality.org/resources/updates/2016/double-crux http://rationality.org/resources/updates/2016/double-crux