6 ms·

I very much disagree with the thesis. Logic is asymmetric: logic works better for the true side. As for the "rhetorical power of social media networks", it's sy

I very much disagree with the thesis. Logic is asymmetric: logic works better for the true side. As for the "rhetorical power of social media networks", it's symmetric: it may be advantageous for the author's side right now, but tide can turn and it can favor the other side. The author talks of "hate speech" and assume the certain side should win, otherwise debate is useless. This is wrong. The true side should win, and you don't know whether your side is true or not. This epistemic humbleness is the essential ingredient of the useful debate.

txsh 8y ago
This is incorrect. It takes very few people to start an information cascade. The wrong side can win just as easily as the right one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_cascade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_cascade
- sanxiyn 8y ago
  The wrong side can win, but not just as easily. I claimed that the true side has an edge, not that the true side wins every time.
  - charlesism 8y ago
    > The wrong side can win, but not just as easily "One thing is sure," replied Dupin, quoting from Chamfort, "that all common knowledge, all traditional opinions, are foolish, for the very reason that the majority agrees with them."
    - sanxiyn 8y ago
      This does not contradict what I said. The true side has an edge in logical debates. If we exclusively used logical debates, the true side would be the majority. Since we don't, the majority is often wrong.
      - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
        The 'problem' with this (which is not a problem, in my opinion) is that logic often leads people to conclusions which make them extremely uncomfortable. I don't think it's so much that people cannot use logic to come to conclusions, but rather that they simply do not like the conclusions that they come to. Today there's widespread cognitive dissonance on a whole array of topics. This is being compounded by a widespread effort to promote emotion to being something reasonable to consider in discussion and debate. It makes one wonder if this is just a brief blip or if we're beginning a historical repetition. The word pathetic is quite interesting and appropriate. It is derived from pathetikos which is essentially somebody that is sensitive or otherwise subject to emotion. It would be interesting to understand the exact events which evolved the word to its current connotation.
  - txsh 8y ago
    The true side does not have an advantage. I provided a link to more information about the subject.
hetman 8y ago
I think logic is fairly neutral when it comes to truth. It's just a method for organising axioms. Whether the logical system you choose actually favours truth or not, really depends on the axioms you choose. Further more, even with the right axioms you still have the problem of imperfect decidability because in practice we have imperfect observations of all the relevant data, and non-infinite computational power to examine all the relevant permutations of that data. Now I'm not saying logic isn't useful for seeking truth; with a lot of care applied to the choice of axioms and examination of the data it can still be very helpful in weeding out untruths. The problem is a lot of these debates are permeated by rhetoric which is more interested in some predetermined conclusion than seeking truth. Even subtle tweaks to a good logical approach can get you out into the weeds very quickly.
- naasking 8y ago
  But when comparing against reality, there's very likely a shortest logical description. That what makes logic assymetric as the OP said.
  - brain5ide 8y ago
    Define length of a logical desciption. Number of statements? Number of axiomatic categories involved? The categories being agreed on? That's all quite shaky IMO.
    - szemet 8y ago
      Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_description_length https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_description_length Literally unusable in real world arguments though ;)
      - naasking 8y ago
        And don't forget Solomonoff Induction, which builds a total order over hypotheses using Kolmogorov complexity.
  - 8y ago
jadedhacker 8y ago
It's often clear that one ideological disposition relies on laughably untrue rhetoric more than the other, but on their best days, the left and right both agree on facts, they just disagree on their interpretation of them and what that means we should do. Debate doesn't work because the idea of the right is to restrict resources to the "deserving" (individualism, tax breaks, etc) and kick around everyone not in the in group. The left says that we can make a more equal society and so we should try to solve our problems by redistributing resources. This is not a gap you can bridge with logic, it's a fundamentally different moral interpretation of reality. This is sharing vs defending. EDIT: However, Noam Chomsky gave a very interesting talk about how moral senses develop and change. There is some flexibility in our moral systems. For instance, until like, a year or two ago, casual homophobia was acceptable in public, now it isn't amongst a growing swath of the population. It's kind of fun to look at old Tweets by media personalities and see how much they've changed their positions (something very desirable) either because their beliefs changed or because their audience did.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  this doesn't strike me as a fair assessment of the left vs right. I'd be inclined to rephrase the comparison (based entirely on my own mental model of fiscal left/right politics) as "the left wants to prioritise economic equality over incentivisation, where the right wants to prioritise incentivisation over economic equality". The fiscal right is at least theoretically about allowing market forces to dictate the movement of resources, where the left uses the state to redistribute resources when it deems the market to be unfair.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Do you think somebody on the right would describe their position as "Yeah, we like to restrict resources to the deserving and kick around everybody else!" When you start with strawmen as a fundamental basis, then of course you're not going to be able to have any sort of debate. And this is perhaps an ironic example of why debate in contemporary times is quite futile. As we segregate ourselves off into ideologically aligned groups, we begin to fall further from reality both in terms of our own views but even more so in terms of understanding views of those whom we don't agree with.
tdb7893 8y ago
I think the premise that in debates one argument is "true" to be questionable. Which one is "true" generally seems to stem from what people value, which is inherently subjective.

txsh 8y ago

This is incorrect. It takes very few people to start an information cascade. The wrong side can win just as easily as the right one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_cascade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_cascade

sanxiyn 8y ago
The wrong side can win, but not just as easily. I claimed that the true side has an edge, not that the true side wins every time.
- charlesism 8y ago
  > The wrong side can win, but not just as easily "One thing is sure," replied Dupin, quoting from Chamfort, "that all common knowledge, all traditional opinions, are foolish, for the very reason that the majority agrees with them."
  - sanxiyn 8y ago
    This does not contradict what I said. The true side has an edge in logical debates. If we exclusively used logical debates, the true side would be the majority. Since we don't, the majority is often wrong.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      The 'problem' with this (which is not a problem, in my opinion) is that logic often leads people to conclusions which make them extremely uncomfortable. I don't think it's so much that people cannot use logic to come to conclusions, but rather that they simply do not like the conclusions that they come to. Today there's widespread cognitive dissonance on a whole array of topics. This is being compounded by a widespread effort to promote emotion to being something reasonable to consider in discussion and debate. It makes one wonder if this is just a brief blip or if we're beginning a historical repetition. The word pathetic is quite interesting and appropriate. It is derived from pathetikos which is essentially somebody that is sensitive or otherwise subject to emotion. It would be interesting to understand the exact events which evolved the word to its current connotation.
- txsh 8y ago
  The true side does not have an advantage. I provided a link to more information about the subject.

hetman 8y ago

I think logic is fairly neutral when it comes to truth. It's just a method for organising axioms. Whether the logical system you choose actually favours truth or not, really depends on the axioms you choose. Further more, even with the right axioms you still have the problem of imperfect decidability because in practice we have imperfect observations of all the relevant data, and non-infinite computational power to examine all the relevant permutations of that data. Now I'm not saying logic isn't useful for seeking truth; with a lot of care applied to the choice of axioms and examination of the data it can still be very helpful in weeding out untruths. The problem is a lot of these debates are permeated by rhetoric which is more interested in some predetermined conclusion than seeking truth. Even subtle tweaks to a good logical approach can get you out into the weeds very quickly.

naasking 8y ago
But when comparing against reality, there's very likely a shortest logical description. That what makes logic assymetric as the OP said.
- brain5ide 8y ago
  Define length of a logical desciption. Number of statements? Number of axiomatic categories involved? The categories being agreed on? That's all quite shaky IMO.
  - szemet 8y ago
    Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_description_length https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_description_length Literally unusable in real world arguments though ;)
    - naasking 8y ago
      And don't forget Solomonoff Induction, which builds a total order over hypotheses using Kolmogorov complexity.
- 8y ago

jadedhacker 8y ago

It's often clear that one ideological disposition relies on laughably untrue rhetoric more than the other, but on their best days, the left and right both agree on facts, they just disagree on their interpretation of them and what that means we should do. Debate doesn't work because the idea of the right is to restrict resources to the "deserving" (individualism, tax breaks, etc) and kick around everyone not in the in group. The left says that we can make a more equal society and so we should try to solve our problems by redistributing resources. This is not a gap you can bridge with logic, it's a fundamentally different moral interpretation of reality. This is sharing vs defending. EDIT: However, Noam Chomsky gave a very interesting talk about how moral senses develop and change. There is some flexibility in our moral systems. For instance, until like, a year or two ago, casual homophobia was acceptable in public, now it isn't amongst a growing swath of the population. It's kind of fun to look at old Tweets by media personalities and see how much they've changed their positions (something very desirable) either because their beliefs changed or because their audience did.

beaconstudios 8y ago
this doesn't strike me as a fair assessment of the left vs right. I'd be inclined to rephrase the comparison (based entirely on my own mental model of fiscal left/right politics) as "the left wants to prioritise economic equality over incentivisation, where the right wants to prioritise incentivisation over economic equality". The fiscal right is at least theoretically about allowing market forces to dictate the movement of resources, where the left uses the state to redistribute resources when it deems the market to be unfair.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Do you think somebody on the right would describe their position as "Yeah, we like to restrict resources to the deserving and kick around everybody else!" When you start with strawmen as a fundamental basis, then of course you're not going to be able to have any sort of debate. And this is perhaps an ironic example of why debate in contemporary times is quite futile. As we segregate ourselves off into ideologically aligned groups, we begin to fall further from reality both in terms of our own views but even more so in terms of understanding views of those whom we don't agree with.

tdb7893 8y ago

I think the premise that in debates one argument is "true" to be questionable. Which one is "true" generally seems to stem from what people value, which is inherently subjective.