3 ms·

>Even if both sides of the argument are incorrect, if the second opinion was formed through rigorous scientific investigation and represents and the best unders

>Even if both sides of the argument are incorrect, if the second opinion was formed through rigorous scientific investigation and represents and the best understanding that we currently have, why should we treat it equally with the opinion that was not developed through any sort of discourse and research? No, but I don't think that's what the parent was saying. I think you might be making the same mistake he was calling out: assuming the other side hasn't put any thought into their argument. Sometimes they haven't but sometimes, despite how radical the position may sound, they have put work into it.

chrischen 16y ago
It doesn't matter how much effort you put into it. It only matters how rational and factual it ends up being.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  I was using "put work into it" as a shorthand but yes, this is what I mean: many counter arguments have merit as well. People always tend to assume the other side isn't being rational.
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Well in my experience that assumption often holds - most people aren't rational, don't understand the issues and will proceed to try and beat you down with "talking points". I have a two part test to figure out whether someone's a skeptic or a denier: 1. Ask them some sort of question about their position - "Why do you think X", or "How do you explain this weakpoint in your argument?" Basically try and put them on the spot a bit. 2. If they're evasive, then ask them what sort of evidence it would take for them to change their mind. If they can't give a good response to either of these questions, then they're a denier - if you can't defend your position, and you're not going to admit to any possibility of error, there's not much point in arguing.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      It does often hold, but to me this doesn't justify the arrogance I see so often today. If we spoke with more honest language it might head off some of the defensive responses and make it easier to pinpoint the real break downs in communication. For example, for me the problem isn't that people aren't convinced by the GW evidence accumulated so far (either side). The problem is they are actively advocating a theory based on ignorance (e.g. "it's not conclusive that the cause is X so therefor I assert it is Y").
      - anthonyb 16y ago
        Sure, but just because something isn't completely conclusive, doesn't mean that it's wrong, or that you shouldn't start taking action based on it. And where do you draw the line? If something's 99% certain, or 99.9% certain, at what point do you stop arguing and take it as fact? When are you allowed to start actively advocating a particular theory?
        loewenskind 16y ago
        >or that you shouldn't start taking action based on it. Those who are convinced should indeed start taking action. >And where do you draw the line? That's up to the person. Some people have a threshold so high it will always be beyond our grasp to meet, some have a threshold of "higher probability score than any alternative" no matter how low the probability actually is (e.g. 5% chance vs 2%, 1%, etc.). >at what point do you stop arguing and take it as fact? Again, it's up to the person. But again, if the person doesn't accept something as fact I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with them presenting their unconvinced-ness as some kind of alternative "theory". >When are you allowed to start actively advocating a particular theory? When you have one. "The other guy is probably wrong" isn't a theory.

chrischen 16y ago

It doesn't matter how much effort you put into it. It only matters how rational and factual it ends up being.

loewenskind 16y ago
I was using "put work into it" as a shorthand but yes, this is what I mean: many counter arguments have merit as well. People always tend to assume the other side isn't being rational.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  Well in my experience that assumption often holds - most people aren't rational, don't understand the issues and will proceed to try and beat you down with "talking points". I have a two part test to figure out whether someone's a skeptic or a denier: 1. Ask them some sort of question about their position - "Why do you think X", or "How do you explain this weakpoint in your argument?" Basically try and put them on the spot a bit. 2. If they're evasive, then ask them what sort of evidence it would take for them to change their mind. If they can't give a good response to either of these questions, then they're a denier - if you can't defend your position, and you're not going to admit to any possibility of error, there's not much point in arguing.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    It does often hold, but to me this doesn't justify the arrogance I see so often today. If we spoke with more honest language it might head off some of the defensive responses and make it easier to pinpoint the real break downs in communication. For example, for me the problem isn't that people aren't convinced by the GW evidence accumulated so far (either side). The problem is they are actively advocating a theory based on ignorance (e.g. "it's not conclusive that the cause is X so therefor I assert it is Y").
    - anthonyb 16y ago
      Sure, but just because something isn't completely conclusive, doesn't mean that it's wrong, or that you shouldn't start taking action based on it. And where do you draw the line? If something's 99% certain, or 99.9% certain, at what point do you stop arguing and take it as fact? When are you allowed to start actively advocating a particular theory?
      - loewenskind 16y ago
        >or that you shouldn't start taking action based on it. Those who are convinced should indeed start taking action. >And where do you draw the line? That's up to the person. Some people have a threshold so high it will always be beyond our grasp to meet, some have a threshold of "higher probability score than any alternative" no matter how low the probability actually is (e.g. 5% chance vs 2%, 1%, etc.). >at what point do you stop arguing and take it as fact? Again, it's up to the person. But again, if the person doesn't accept something as fact I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with them presenting their unconvinced-ness as some kind of alternative "theory". >When are you allowed to start actively advocating a particular theory? When you have one. "The other guy is probably wrong" isn't a theory.