6 ms·

I came late to realize the existence of this problem, and discovered it when someone on Twitter blocked me simply for asking about Jordan Peterson. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I

I came late to realize the existence of this problem, and discovered it when someone on Twitter blocked me simply for asking about Jordan Peterson. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I fail to see how sanctioning/blocking/banning/censuring/deplatforming is compatible with open honest debate (these are all basically the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum fallacy, "punishment-as-argument"), in any event, and since I strongly believe in the latter, I fall on the "strong free speech" side. (My Twitter account has all of 9 blocked accounts, and those are mostly things like low-signal-to-noise-ratio businesses with lots of promoted tweets) There are people who believe that ideas exist that are both bad and that cannot be defeated rationally, but I think they are wrong. Take racism, for example (I've argued against racists): They will come at you with supporting (correlational) data, so you come at them with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_and_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_and_intelligence and then you ask them whether they're shorter than average and still want to act on these correlations they put so much stock in, because in that case they need to now act against their own interests (favor preferential hiring of tall people, etc.), and you just wait and let that sink in because most of them will go quiet. ;)

ashton314 7y ago
Amen: the best way to defeat any bad argument is to subject it to public, open, and fair scrutiny. If anything is true, it will stand. If it is false, there is no greater boon to an intellectual community than having publicly dissected and exposed for what it is.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  There really is a difference between being able to logically refute an idea and for that refutation to hold any sway; if anything, there's a lot of evidence against what you're saying. Consider the widespread climate change skepticism movements, flat earth movements, anti-vaccination movements, the rise of far-right and neo-Nazism, and recent political happenings (e.g. the Brexit campaign tactic claiming that money given to the EU would be able to fund the health service in the UK). Can their arguments be countered and argued against? Of course, most people would say so. But does that mean that they'll be defeated in the court of public opinion? Consider that society does not function as and is not based upon systems of rational deliberation. The intellectuals may not be convinced by bad ideas and arguments, but the public is, and the importance of the public here is shown in the fact that all the movements I've named also take advantage of rhetoric, not merely logical argumentation. So the real question is: if open and fair scrutiny is a way to defeat a bad argument, what's the way to defeat the rhetoric used to prop up that bad argument? It's clear that one can have rhetoric with a bad argument too, isn't it?
  - pmarreck 7y ago
    > Consider that society does not function as and is not based upon systems of rational deliberation The court system? The medical industry? Science? Technology? The financial system? > if open and fair scrutiny is a way to defeat a bad argument, what's the way to defeat the rhetoric used to prop up that bad argument? Well, that's a good question. Charisma and persuasiveness can be used by both good and not-so-good (if well-intending) actors. I think intellectuals might spot and discount the appeals to emotion, but non-intellectuals and those of weak critical thinking skill would not, and the latter do make up the majority of the population. The thing is, public sentiment eventually does seem to drift closer to the truths the rationalists determined already; see for example marijuana acceptance, gayness acceptance, and (hopefully, maybe) human-caused climate change. Is it because of a slowly-encroaching realization that the rationalists were right? Or is it all down to the lucky benevolence of the "persuaders"? And if most people aren't swayed by logical reasoning, then how does ANY progress actually get made (where "progress" is measured as "closer to rational truths and goods"), except as an accidental beneficence of Those Who Persuade Us?
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      >Charisma and persuasiveness can be used by both good and not-so-good (if well-intending) actors. But it's not only about being able to deliver the right charisma; certain ideas are more attractive than others, and I think that many bad ideas are attractive because they appeal to biases that we already have, along with ideological factors. Most people, for instance, do not believe their belief in democratic systems or prevailing rationality to be deeply ideological. There are two sides to using historical arguments here: firstly, they can obviously help make a case, but secondly there are reasons to believe that in today's society critical thinking skills are dulled through a variety of unintentional processes. I think the mistake in your post is assuming that gay acceptance, marijuana acceptance and human-caused climate change acceptance have come about from the triumph of reason over ignorance, but I'd say that a more plausible explanation is that they operate within the same framework which convinced people that gays shouldn't be accepted and that marijuana is the devil's lettuce. Next, it is possible that misinformation reaches such a height that the mere "drift closer to truths" is not sufficient[0]; consider the rise to power of the Nazi party, which was so fast even in its day. Finally, the establishment of truth in a democracy on a wide scale requires that people are able to use their own intellects to judge arguments sufficiently well enough to do so, but I think that's an assumption we take for granted: "Now in recalling John Stuart Mill's passage, I drew attention to the premise hidden in this assumption: free and equal discussion can fulfill the function attributed to it only if it is rational expression and development of independent thinking, free from indoctrination, manipulation, extraneous authority. The notion of pluralism and countervailing powers is no substitute for this requirement. One might in theory construct a state in which a multitude of different pressures, interests, and authorities balance each other out and result in a truly general and rational interest. However, such a construction badly fits a society in which powers are and remain unequal and even increase their unequal weight when they run their own course." [0] "The evaluation is ex post, and his list includes opposites (Savonarola too would have burned Fra Dolcino). Even the ex post evaluation is contestable as to its truth: history corrects the judgment--too late. The correction does not help the victims and does not absolve their executioners. However, the lesson is clear: intolerance has delayed progress and has prolonged the slaughter and torture of innocents for hundreds of years. Does this clinch the case for indiscriminate, 'pure' tolerance? Are there historical conditions in which such toleration impedes liberation and multiplies the victims who are sacrificed to the status quo?" (H. Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance (1965))
- tzs 7y ago
  That's probably true in isolation, but I have doubts about whether it scales. It's generally easier and less time consuming to produce a bad argument than it is to produce a good argument to refute the bad argument. For the targets of the arguments, it often is harder and more time consuming to follow the good argument, too. Get too many independent sources of bad arguments in your society, and there simply won't be time and resources to counter them.
  - ashton314 7y ago
    You raise a good point. Sure, it can't match the scale. However, I think that if you can sway the intelligent and conscientious, you've won most of the battle. You don't need to (and really can't) counter every bad or false argument or idea. Maybe I'm too optimistic, though. Trying to scale effective debate is a hard problem. I've run across a few entities that are trying to make civil, open discourse more commonplace. Unfortunately I forget the name… Anyone got examples?
    - pmarreck 7y ago
      There are sites like procon.org that pit arguments 1-vs-1, but don't really make allowances for rebuttals, see this one on e-cigs for example: https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005430 https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005430
  - pmarreck 7y ago
    > It's generally easier and less time consuming to produce a bad argument than it is to produce a good argument to refute the bad argument Yep, that's the main reason the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop works. > Get too many independent sources of bad arguments in your society, and there simply won't be time and resources to counter them. You can find time and resources to counter the most damaging bad arguments, though. Many bad arguments just do things like sell pills or supplements that don't actually do anything measurable that beats placebo; not really harmful per se, even if based on bullshit. See: "Dr." Oz.
  - joeblow9999 7y ago
cat199 7y ago
cue the downvotes, but, if your 'progressive' ideology requires constant 'progress', eventually you will need to invent new 'progress' to keep 'progressing' when you run out of things to 'progress' towards, and it's easier to call others hateful than question this core philosophical tenet as part of ones own 'philosophical identity'.. are some trans skeptics transphobic: unequivocally yes are some trans skeptics not transphobic: unequivocally yes but all the easier to tar-and-feather them both as one 'hateful' unit in order to suppress discussion.. (again, cue the downvotes - but realize by doing so you are simply proving me right)
- danharaj 7y ago
  > are some trans skeptics not transphobic: unequivocally yes How?
  - cat199 7y ago
    by disagreeing with the philosophial argument that gender is different from bilological sex without actually being afraid (phobia) of being wrong, nor being 'hateful' to those who claim it (e.g. treat them like people)
  - drak0n1c 7y ago
    Phobia is a strong label meaning irrational fear or hatred. Skepticism of mainstream assumptions does not always involve irrational fear or hatred.
    - david38 7y ago
      This. The left loves to redefine words like phobias to weaponize them. They then say anyone who is not welcoming with open arms is x-phobic and lives in fear and hatred of said group and by extension wishes to attack them. It is very possible to disagree with something like homosexuality and simply go about your life. It doesn’t mean you throw stones or spit at them, you just disagree with them. Trans is a little different because the desired outcome is you change your behavior NOT to treat them like everyone else but to treat them according to target identity. So if you choose not to go out of your way to treat them differently, you are phobic. In the past, this wasn’t an issue. You could not believe in mixing races and that simply meant you didn’t date outside your race. You still addressed a black/Hispanic/etc man as sir, woman as m’am, etc. a flat out racist would call the men “boy”, refuse to serve them, whatever. Of course there are people today who will call you a racist for not sleeping with someone outside your race. They redefine racist as any change in behavior based on race instead of the intended idea where your actions deny the person those things they would otherwise have a right to.
snowwrestler 7y ago
> There are people who believe that ideas exist that are both bad and that cannot be defeated rationally, but I think they are wrong. Ok, so what does it look like when someone's argument is defeated rationally? Who is the referee of when the defeat occurs? What happens to that person if they don't agree with the referee, and persist in their irrational argument? > you just wait and let that sink in because most of them will go quiet. What should you do if they don't go quiet? What should you do if they never go quiet, no matter what you say? EDIT - it is incredibly apt that this comment is getting downvoted :-)
- drak0n1c 7y ago
  Then you move on. Regardless of whether you or the other party benefitted from the discussion, at least any observers might have.
- pmarreck 7y ago
  > Ok, so what does it look like when someone's argument is defeated rationally? I was going to say "court trials", but it turns out that lawyers use fallacies and persuasive tactics all the time, so I cannot. :/ Maybe most of the time, in a trial? > Who is the referee of when the defeat occurs? The judge. :) (I know what you're angling at, though... who watches the watchers, how can anyone judge what is objective truth, etc.) > What happens to that person if they don't agree with the referee, and persist in their irrational argument? You can keep trying to show them why it is irrational. I've been able to show some people why part of their reasoning is circular, for example. > What should you do if they don't go quiet? Let them rot away in their collectively dim zero-sum-game worldview? > What should you do if they never go quiet, no matter what you say? "Never"? How do you know they will "never" go quiet? The anti-suffragists have largely gone quiet... The anti-mixed-race-marriage folks have largely gone quiet... Are you also present 1000 years in the future and somehow know these eventualities or lack thereof? (It's almost like you're making an Appeal to Zeno's Paradox, here.) > EDIT - it is incredibly apt that this comment is getting downvoted :-) Those people are dumb and devoid of faith in their own arguments, because you don't seem to be violating the offtopic rule and your comment is pointed albeit reasonable. In the spirit of the very principle the original post was about, have an upvote.
stillbourne 7y ago
The problem is people like Jordan Peterson are very careful who they choose to argue with, when paired against a skillful interlocutor, such as Matt Dillahunty, Jordan's arguments can be shown for the bullshit that they are. eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8 The appeal that his particular block seems to be entranced by is his unique ability to engage in cheap rhetorical tricks. Those who are skilled in debate can recognize these logical fallacies but a weaker interviewer will fall to pieces. As Jordan seems to be more interested in engaging in interviews with weaker orators these debates usually fail quit spectacularly. Much like watching a train wreck you can not seem to avert your gaze. His acolytes seem to derive a great sense to schadenfreude from this. When faced with a skilled rhetorician such as Jordan Peterson the more simple solution is to disengage from his oratorical slight of hand and ignore him for the jackass he is. You may consider this punishment, others consider it withdrawing from an uphill battle from a renowned quack that performed philosophical debate in the same manner and school of thought as the Gish Gallop. Arguing with Jordan Peterson is tantamount to arguing with a flat earther. Rather than give platforms to these charletens it is best to ignore them.
- joeblow9999 7y ago
  good grief. talk about proving the point.... not even a jp fan here...
  - stillbourne 7y ago
    What a very vapid response, your statement contains no content whatsoever. Why did you even bother?
    - joeblow9999 7y ago
      to point out the parent literally emulated the description of prejudiced un thinking responses to 'wrongthink' that they were apprently trying to rebut?
      - stillbourne 7y ago

ashton314 7y ago

Amen: the best way to defeat any bad argument is to subject it to public, open, and fair scrutiny. If anything is true, it will stand. If it is false, there is no greater boon to an intellectual community than having publicly dissected and exposed for what it is.

claudiawerner 7y ago
There really is a difference between being able to logically refute an idea and for that refutation to hold any sway; if anything, there's a lot of evidence against what you're saying. Consider the widespread climate change skepticism movements, flat earth movements, anti-vaccination movements, the rise of far-right and neo-Nazism, and recent political happenings (e.g. the Brexit campaign tactic claiming that money given to the EU would be able to fund the health service in the UK). Can their arguments be countered and argued against? Of course, most people would say so. But does that mean that they'll be defeated in the court of public opinion? Consider that society does not function as and is not based upon systems of rational deliberation. The intellectuals may not be convinced by bad ideas and arguments, but the public is, and the importance of the public here is shown in the fact that all the movements I've named also take advantage of rhetoric, not merely logical argumentation. So the real question is: if open and fair scrutiny is a way to defeat a bad argument, what's the way to defeat the rhetoric used to prop up that bad argument? It's clear that one can have rhetoric with a bad argument too, isn't it?
- pmarreck 7y ago
  > Consider that society does not function as and is not based upon systems of rational deliberation The court system? The medical industry? Science? Technology? The financial system? > if open and fair scrutiny is a way to defeat a bad argument, what's the way to defeat the rhetoric used to prop up that bad argument? Well, that's a good question. Charisma and persuasiveness can be used by both good and not-so-good (if well-intending) actors. I think intellectuals might spot and discount the appeals to emotion, but non-intellectuals and those of weak critical thinking skill would not, and the latter do make up the majority of the population. The thing is, public sentiment eventually does seem to drift closer to the truths the rationalists determined already; see for example marijuana acceptance, gayness acceptance, and (hopefully, maybe) human-caused climate change. Is it because of a slowly-encroaching realization that the rationalists were right? Or is it all down to the lucky benevolence of the "persuaders"? And if most people aren't swayed by logical reasoning, then how does ANY progress actually get made (where "progress" is measured as "closer to rational truths and goods"), except as an accidental beneficence of Those Who Persuade Us?
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    >Charisma and persuasiveness can be used by both good and not-so-good (if well-intending) actors. But it's not only about being able to deliver the right charisma; certain ideas are more attractive than others, and I think that many bad ideas are attractive because they appeal to biases that we already have, along with ideological factors. Most people, for instance, do not believe their belief in democratic systems or prevailing rationality to be deeply ideological. There are two sides to using historical arguments here: firstly, they can obviously help make a case, but secondly there are reasons to believe that in today's society critical thinking skills are dulled through a variety of unintentional processes. I think the mistake in your post is assuming that gay acceptance, marijuana acceptance and human-caused climate change acceptance have come about from the triumph of reason over ignorance, but I'd say that a more plausible explanation is that they operate within the same framework which convinced people that gays shouldn't be accepted and that marijuana is the devil's lettuce. Next, it is possible that misinformation reaches such a height that the mere "drift closer to truths" is not sufficient[0]; consider the rise to power of the Nazi party, which was so fast even in its day. Finally, the establishment of truth in a democracy on a wide scale requires that people are able to use their own intellects to judge arguments sufficiently well enough to do so, but I think that's an assumption we take for granted: "Now in recalling John Stuart Mill's passage, I drew attention to the premise hidden in this assumption: free and equal discussion can fulfill the function attributed to it only if it is rational expression and development of independent thinking, free from indoctrination, manipulation, extraneous authority. The notion of pluralism and countervailing powers is no substitute for this requirement. One might in theory construct a state in which a multitude of different pressures, interests, and authorities balance each other out and result in a truly general and rational interest. However, such a construction badly fits a society in which powers are and remain unequal and even increase their unequal weight when they run their own course." [0] "The evaluation is ex post, and his list includes opposites (Savonarola too would have burned Fra Dolcino). Even the ex post evaluation is contestable as to its truth: history corrects the judgment--too late. The correction does not help the victims and does not absolve their executioners. However, the lesson is clear: intolerance has delayed progress and has prolonged the slaughter and torture of innocents for hundreds of years. Does this clinch the case for indiscriminate, 'pure' tolerance? Are there historical conditions in which such toleration impedes liberation and multiplies the victims who are sacrificed to the status quo?" (H. Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance (1965))
tzs 7y ago
That's probably true in isolation, but I have doubts about whether it scales. It's generally easier and less time consuming to produce a bad argument than it is to produce a good argument to refute the bad argument. For the targets of the arguments, it often is harder and more time consuming to follow the good argument, too. Get too many independent sources of bad arguments in your society, and there simply won't be time and resources to counter them.
- ashton314 7y ago
  You raise a good point. Sure, it can't match the scale. However, I think that if you can sway the intelligent and conscientious, you've won most of the battle. You don't need to (and really can't) counter every bad or false argument or idea. Maybe I'm too optimistic, though. Trying to scale effective debate is a hard problem. I've run across a few entities that are trying to make civil, open discourse more commonplace. Unfortunately I forget the name… Anyone got examples?
  - pmarreck 7y ago
    There are sites like procon.org that pit arguments 1-vs-1, but don't really make allowances for rebuttals, see this one on e-cigs for example: https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005430 https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005430
- pmarreck 7y ago
  > It's generally easier and less time consuming to produce a bad argument than it is to produce a good argument to refute the bad argument Yep, that's the main reason the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop works. > Get too many independent sources of bad arguments in your society, and there simply won't be time and resources to counter them. You can find time and resources to counter the most damaging bad arguments, though. Many bad arguments just do things like sell pills or supplements that don't actually do anything measurable that beats placebo; not really harmful per se, even if based on bullshit. See: "Dr." Oz.
- joeblow9999 7y ago

cat199 7y ago

cue the downvotes, but, if your 'progressive' ideology requires constant 'progress', eventually you will need to invent new 'progress' to keep 'progressing' when you run out of things to 'progress' towards, and it's easier to call others hateful than question this core philosophical tenet as part of ones own 'philosophical identity'.. are some trans skeptics transphobic: unequivocally yes are some trans skeptics not transphobic: unequivocally yes but all the easier to tar-and-feather them both as one 'hateful' unit in order to suppress discussion.. (again, cue the downvotes - but realize by doing so you are simply proving me right)

danharaj 7y ago
> are some trans skeptics not transphobic: unequivocally yes How?
- cat199 7y ago
  by disagreeing with the philosophial argument that gender is different from bilological sex without actually being afraid (phobia) of being wrong, nor being 'hateful' to those who claim it (e.g. treat them like people)
- drak0n1c 7y ago
  Phobia is a strong label meaning irrational fear or hatred. Skepticism of mainstream assumptions does not always involve irrational fear or hatred.
  - david38 7y ago
    This. The left loves to redefine words like phobias to weaponize them. They then say anyone who is not welcoming with open arms is x-phobic and lives in fear and hatred of said group and by extension wishes to attack them. It is very possible to disagree with something like homosexuality and simply go about your life. It doesn’t mean you throw stones or spit at them, you just disagree with them. Trans is a little different because the desired outcome is you change your behavior NOT to treat them like everyone else but to treat them according to target identity. So if you choose not to go out of your way to treat them differently, you are phobic. In the past, this wasn’t an issue. You could not believe in mixing races and that simply meant you didn’t date outside your race. You still addressed a black/Hispanic/etc man as sir, woman as m’am, etc. a flat out racist would call the men “boy”, refuse to serve them, whatever. Of course there are people today who will call you a racist for not sleeping with someone outside your race. They redefine racist as any change in behavior based on race instead of the intended idea where your actions deny the person those things they would otherwise have a right to.

snowwrestler 7y ago

> There are people who believe that ideas exist that are both bad and that cannot be defeated rationally, but I think they are wrong. Ok, so what does it look like when someone's argument is defeated rationally? Who is the referee of when the defeat occurs? What happens to that person if they don't agree with the referee, and persist in their irrational argument? > you just wait and let that sink in because most of them will go quiet. What should you do if they don't go quiet? What should you do if they never go quiet, no matter what you say? EDIT - it is incredibly apt that this comment is getting downvoted :-)

drak0n1c 7y ago
Then you move on. Regardless of whether you or the other party benefitted from the discussion, at least any observers might have.
pmarreck 7y ago
> Ok, so what does it look like when someone's argument is defeated rationally? I was going to say "court trials", but it turns out that lawyers use fallacies and persuasive tactics all the time, so I cannot. :/ Maybe most of the time, in a trial? > Who is the referee of when the defeat occurs? The judge. :) (I know what you're angling at, though... who watches the watchers, how can anyone judge what is objective truth, etc.) > What happens to that person if they don't agree with the referee, and persist in their irrational argument? You can keep trying to show them why it is irrational. I've been able to show some people why part of their reasoning is circular, for example. > What should you do if they don't go quiet? Let them rot away in their collectively dim zero-sum-game worldview? > What should you do if they never go quiet, no matter what you say? "Never"? How do you know they will "never" go quiet? The anti-suffragists have largely gone quiet... The anti-mixed-race-marriage folks have largely gone quiet... Are you also present 1000 years in the future and somehow know these eventualities or lack thereof? (It's almost like you're making an Appeal to Zeno's Paradox, here.) > EDIT - it is incredibly apt that this comment is getting downvoted :-) Those people are dumb and devoid of faith in their own arguments, because you don't seem to be violating the offtopic rule and your comment is pointed albeit reasonable. In the spirit of the very principle the original post was about, have an upvote.

stillbourne 7y ago

The problem is people like Jordan Peterson are very careful who they choose to argue with, when paired against a skillful interlocutor, such as Matt Dillahunty, Jordan's arguments can be shown for the bullshit that they are. eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8 The appeal that his particular block seems to be entranced by is his unique ability to engage in cheap rhetorical tricks. Those who are skilled in debate can recognize these logical fallacies but a weaker interviewer will fall to pieces. As Jordan seems to be more interested in engaging in interviews with weaker orators these debates usually fail quit spectacularly. Much like watching a train wreck you can not seem to avert your gaze. His acolytes seem to derive a great sense to schadenfreude from this. When faced with a skilled rhetorician such as Jordan Peterson the more simple solution is to disengage from his oratorical slight of hand and ignore him for the jackass he is. You may consider this punishment, others consider it withdrawing from an uphill battle from a renowned quack that performed philosophical debate in the same manner and school of thought as the Gish Gallop. Arguing with Jordan Peterson is tantamount to arguing with a flat earther. Rather than give platforms to these charletens it is best to ignore them.

joeblow9999 7y ago
good grief. talk about proving the point.... not even a jp fan here...
- stillbourne 7y ago
  What a very vapid response, your statement contains no content whatsoever. Why did you even bother?
  - joeblow9999 7y ago
    to point out the parent literally emulated the description of prejudiced un thinking responses to 'wrongthink' that they were apprently trying to rebut?
    - stillbourne 7y ago