3 ms·

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 aga

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))
ashton314 7y ago
You raise a really, really good point, and I agree with you: just because a flawed argument has been demonstrated as such doesn't mean it won't sway people's minds. I don't have the answer to such a dilemma. I would love to hear some ideas on the point. The paper talks a lot about what should and should not be allowed in an academic environment, and I think I agree with the bulk of it. Freedom of speech must be protected in such circles. But what you're talking about with public opinion—that is a hard problem that needs solving.
slowmovintarget 7y ago
> what's the way to defeat the rhetoric used to prop up that bad argument? An educated populous able to apply critical thinking. The ability to have the discourse should not be predicated upon the likelihood of winning the argument.
- ashton314 7y ago
  > An educated populous… A thousand times, yes. I see this as the ultimate solution. Do you think there's anything that we can do now to improve the situation on education?
belorn 7y ago
Part of allowing the discussion is to identify who is an allied, who is a enemy and who is neutral, and then focus the refuting accordingly. Take climate change. Is those who think we are currently in a run-away scenario friend or foe? It is very easy for people to define them as foe because their views and suggestions are different, and from there put them in the climate change skeptic side even if they share nothing in common with that sides view. Without open and fair scrutiny you get the political situation of "you're either with us, or against us", and from a historical perspective that tend to do more harm than good regardless of what the movement stand for.
- pmarreck 7y ago
  This is exactly why climate science should have never been politicized. (one of my hot-takes is that Gore inadvertently precipitated this.)

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))

ashton314 7y ago

You raise a really, really good point, and I agree with you: just because a flawed argument has been demonstrated as such doesn't mean it won't sway people's minds. I don't have the answer to such a dilemma. I would love to hear some ideas on the point. The paper talks a lot about what should and should not be allowed in an academic environment, and I think I agree with the bulk of it. Freedom of speech must be protected in such circles. But what you're talking about with public opinion—that is a hard problem that needs solving.

slowmovintarget 7y ago

> what's the way to defeat the rhetoric used to prop up that bad argument? An educated populous able to apply critical thinking. The ability to have the discourse should not be predicated upon the likelihood of winning the argument.

ashton314 7y ago
> An educated populous… A thousand times, yes. I see this as the ultimate solution. Do you think there's anything that we can do now to improve the situation on education?

belorn 7y ago

Part of allowing the discussion is to identify who is an allied, who is a enemy and who is neutral, and then focus the refuting accordingly. Take climate change. Is those who think we are currently in a run-away scenario friend or foe? It is very easy for people to define them as foe because their views and suggestions are different, and from there put them in the climate change skeptic side even if they share nothing in common with that sides view. Without open and fair scrutiny you get the political situation of "you're either with us, or against us", and from a historical perspective that tend to do more harm than good regardless of what the movement stand for.

pmarreck 7y ago
This is exactly why climate science should have never been politicized. (one of my hot-takes is that Gore inadvertently precipitated this.)