4 ms·

> The elephant in the room not addressed in this essay is the widespread use of bad faith arguments, and the absence or dismissal of evidence in preference of b

by mfer 6y ago

> The elephant in the room not addressed in this essay is the widespread use of bad faith arguments, and the absence or dismissal of evidence in preference of beliefs and feelings This highlights both a problem an opportunity. How many people know how to make a good argument or how to spot one? How many know what good evidence looks like or how to spot beliefs and assumptions making their way into something? I would argue that many don't know how to spot or make a good argument. That they can't spot assumptions or what make for good evidence. People are taught something very different and it shows.

Spivak 6y ago
> How many people know how to make a good argument or how to spot one? Even if you could spot "good" arguments that really isn't enough without knowing that it's also made in good faith. If the person making an argument doesn't actually believe what they're saying, is arguing with a particular outcome, or is arguing with an ulterior motive like flame-bait then you also shouldn't bother engaging them even if it's well-formed. I would take a bad argument made in good faith every time over the reverse. People who speak genuinely but are passionate, emotional, or aren't the best at expressing themselves can have productive conversations. Someone who's arguing to win isn't worth your time.
- brigandish 6y ago
  How would you know whether someone is making a good faith argument? Without some outward signifier like a cartoon character for an online avatar, which even then wouldn't provide any measure of certainty, it would require mind reading. > People who speak genuinely but are passionate, emotional, or aren't the best at expressing themselves can have productive conversations. Someone who's arguing to win isn't worth your time. If you want to get along in some kind of shallow fashion then the former are better, if you want to find truth or open your mind to possibilities then the latter will outstrip the former by a long way. Both are needed in life but to dismiss either as stupid or bad intentioned seems a stretch.
- lopmotr 6y ago
  If an argument is bad faith but right, doesn't that still make it right? Perhaps what you object to is being dragged into some messy going-in-circles argument. Those are frustrating but they happen because the good-faith participant tolerates some of the logical fallacies and false information presented by the bad-faith one. People have a powerful force driving them to argue for the thing they believe in so it makes sense to tap into that force to generate high quality arguments. If everyone was kind of passive and willing to accept whatever seems obviously right, we wouldn't push any boundaries. Being kind of passive can happen if you're not emotionally invested in your argument.
  - jrumbut 6y ago
    I found the position of preferring a poorly formed, good faith argument weird at first but I've come to like it, given we are talking about material world, practical problems (of any scale). Ultimately, most of our arguments are about solving problems (or pursuing opportunities). Most problems worth arguing at length require collaboration to solve. I would rather discuss problems and their solutions, and hash out disagreements, with someone who is likely to be a true partner in the implementation of the solution. Bad faith vs good faith can then be inferred by track records or commitments, same as you would for anything else.
glitcher 6y ago
I absolutely agree. I have been tempted to buy the logical fallacies and critical thinking posters from The Thinking Shop[1] as gifts for certain family members, but I know too much of my motivation comes from the self-centered position of wanting to prove I'm right, which I didn't want to perpetuate. Instead I just read through the posters and ended up recognizing several items I probably need to work on myself. The cognitive biases are especially tricky, and it seems the more we learn about neuroscience the more reasons we have to distrust our own thinking! [1] https://thethinkingshop.org/ https://thethinkingshop.org/
- pm90 6y ago
  There are twenty four logical fallacies listed there... twenty four Genuine question: how does one keep 24 logical fallacies in mind when evaluating arguments? Do you mentally iterate through all these fallacies? Don't get me wrong: they are very valid and I think they will make me better and my arguments better. I just want to understand how people without photographic memories do this.
  - labster 6y ago
    Learn them one at a time, in such a way as you start seeing the pattern. Human brains are great pattern recognition machines, which is also where the errors come in. That’s okay: you want both zones to fire, so the cognitive dissonance forces you to consciously think about a potential fallacy.
  - new_guy 6y ago
    There's more like over 200 logical fallacies. A good starting point is https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Z-Nigel-Warburton-ebook/dp/B00B9KCKJ4 https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Z-Nigel-Warburton-ebook/dp/B...
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    You don't need to know them all for them to be useful (this falls into what the poster calls the "black and white" fallacy.
redwall_hp 6y ago
One would assume that such a skill should be a requirement to be a part of the profession of journalism. Presupposing, of course, that the goal of journalism is to inform. Don't hire people who aren't qualified.

by mfer 6y ago

Spivak 6y ago

> How many people know how to make a good argument or how to spot one? Even if you could spot "good" arguments that really isn't enough without knowing that it's also made in good faith. If the person making an argument doesn't actually believe what they're saying, is arguing with a particular outcome, or is arguing with an ulterior motive like flame-bait then you also shouldn't bother engaging them even if it's well-formed. I would take a bad argument made in good faith every time over the reverse. People who speak genuinely but are passionate, emotional, or aren't the best at expressing themselves can have productive conversations. Someone who's arguing to win isn't worth your time.

brigandish 6y ago
How would you know whether someone is making a good faith argument? Without some outward signifier like a cartoon character for an online avatar, which even then wouldn't provide any measure of certainty, it would require mind reading. > People who speak genuinely but are passionate, emotional, or aren't the best at expressing themselves can have productive conversations. Someone who's arguing to win isn't worth your time. If you want to get along in some kind of shallow fashion then the former are better, if you want to find truth or open your mind to possibilities then the latter will outstrip the former by a long way. Both are needed in life but to dismiss either as stupid or bad intentioned seems a stretch.
lopmotr 6y ago
If an argument is bad faith but right, doesn't that still make it right? Perhaps what you object to is being dragged into some messy going-in-circles argument. Those are frustrating but they happen because the good-faith participant tolerates some of the logical fallacies and false information presented by the bad-faith one. People have a powerful force driving them to argue for the thing they believe in so it makes sense to tap into that force to generate high quality arguments. If everyone was kind of passive and willing to accept whatever seems obviously right, we wouldn't push any boundaries. Being kind of passive can happen if you're not emotionally invested in your argument.
- jrumbut 6y ago
  I found the position of preferring a poorly formed, good faith argument weird at first but I've come to like it, given we are talking about material world, practical problems (of any scale). Ultimately, most of our arguments are about solving problems (or pursuing opportunities). Most problems worth arguing at length require collaboration to solve. I would rather discuss problems and their solutions, and hash out disagreements, with someone who is likely to be a true partner in the implementation of the solution. Bad faith vs good faith can then be inferred by track records or commitments, same as you would for anything else.

glitcher 6y ago

I absolutely agree. I have been tempted to buy the logical fallacies and critical thinking posters from The Thinking Shop[1] as gifts for certain family members, but I know too much of my motivation comes from the self-centered position of wanting to prove I'm right, which I didn't want to perpetuate. Instead I just read through the posters and ended up recognizing several items I probably need to work on myself. The cognitive biases are especially tricky, and it seems the more we learn about neuroscience the more reasons we have to distrust our own thinking! [1] https://thethinkingshop.org/ https://thethinkingshop.org/

pm90 6y ago
There are twenty four logical fallacies listed there... twenty four Genuine question: how does one keep 24 logical fallacies in mind when evaluating arguments? Do you mentally iterate through all these fallacies? Don't get me wrong: they are very valid and I think they will make me better and my arguments better. I just want to understand how people without photographic memories do this.
- labster 6y ago
  Learn them one at a time, in such a way as you start seeing the pattern. Human brains are great pattern recognition machines, which is also where the errors come in. That’s okay: you want both zones to fire, so the cognitive dissonance forces you to consciously think about a potential fallacy.
- new_guy 6y ago
  There's more like over 200 logical fallacies. A good starting point is https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Z-Nigel-Warburton-ebook/dp/B00B9KCKJ4 https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Z-Nigel-Warburton-ebook/dp/B...
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  You don't need to know them all for them to be useful (this falls into what the poster calls the "black and white" fallacy.

redwall_hp 6y ago

One would assume that such a skill should be a requirement to be a part of the profession of journalism. Presupposing, of course, that the goal of journalism is to inform. Don't hire people who aren't qualified.