6 ms·

This "both sides of an argument" thing is poisoning logic. Somethings dont have 2 sides. The earth is round, for instance.

by windex 6y ago

est 6y ago
> Somethings dont have 2 sides. The earth is round, for instance Not exactly round, but it's an ellipsoid with an uneven surface.
- lhorie 6y ago
  Ellipsoids are round, just not radially symmetrical.
- lukifer 6y ago
  "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." - Isaac Asimov
- AndrewStephens 6y ago
  You are technically correct (the best kind of correct) but the Earth IS round for most intents and purposes. Only people who need very accurate maps care that it is not. If the Earth was shrunk down to bowling ball size and taken to a lane it would be just as spherical as any of the other balls.
  - musicale 6y ago
    I have verified this experimentally.
Karunamon 6y ago
And those incorrect arguments can be listed and directly refuted.
- yodelshady 6y ago
  By sane people, they already have been. I have no need or desire to "engage with" the idea the Holocaust is a good way to control population (not a hypothetical, that's on the front page as I visited). That's not rational debate, "marketplace of ideas", or whatever you want to call it. It's screeching until everyone else realises there's nothing to gain from being there, and leaves.
- zbyte64 6y ago
  By the time they have been refuted there's a stack of new arguments. Checkmate atheists.
panchoviz 6y ago
I agree, but maybe the flat earthers need to see how their argument doesn't hold up to logic from the other side.
- prohobo 6y ago
  That only happens if they are engaged in healthy discussion. A flame war separated into two columns isn't that.
- Freaken 6y ago
  At a certain point, people get in this so deep that it becomes a religion, and unfortunately logic doesn't help in these cases.
- smt88 6y ago
  Flat earthers are not going to change their minds based on logic. They are bombarded with evidence and logic any time they mention their beliefs. Contrary information often entrenches their wrong beliefs even further.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  Have you ever tried to argue with someone who is into conspiracy theories? One of my former best friends went down the deep end. It started with 9/11 conspiracies and just spiralled down from there. I engaged with him, because I care deeply about him, but it just got worse and worse. Initially it was 9/11 and questions about wealth and power distribution and there are some valid questions that can be asked (although all the 9/11 stuff is bonkers). It soon became crazier and crazier, it was about "energy from the vacuum" (essentially a code-word for perpetual motion), how Gates is trying to sterilize the population through vaccination. The irony was that he was seeing himself as a freedom fighter who is speaking the truth to prevent the next fascist regime, completely ignoring that many of the people he followed or supported were literal Nazis. Engaging with him was not possible. He would bombard me with links that somehow were supposed to proof his point. If I brought up counterarguments, he would say that he has strong evidence that one can not believe mainstream media, science, logic ... And that I'm just a sheep blindly following "propaganda" and he knows better. There was absolutely no way of getting through to him or engaging in any kind of discussion. This was just his monologues and flooding me links (many I suspect he did not even read/watch). In the end I had to cut contact, because it was affecting me mentally, the interactions would just leave me exhausted angry and incredibly sad. I don't have a solution, we need to somehow find a way of how people can be drawn into these crazy web of conspiracies and I don't think that creating forums were these crazy things are debated like they are valid opinions is an answer.
maxehmookau 6y ago
Indeed. I notice "The Holocaust could be used as population control" has appeared on the list. Just because a human can put together a thought, doesn't make it good.
bjt2n3904 6y ago
And climate change! And my opinions on gun control! Which arguments are "allowed" to have a side? Given the recent disregard for the concept of freedom of speech, this site seems quaint. These websites always seem to be like an episode of Big Talk.[1] "Alright, let's get this sorted! Does God exist, yes or no?" 1 - https://youtu.be/EUbjpwyesk0 https://youtu.be/EUbjpwyesk0
mancerayder 6y ago
That's true, but that's the price we pay for open discussion. I'll take faulty logic that needs correction over a Philosopher King-style oversight. Because I don't trust oversight not on the question of the Earth's shape, but rather on controversial or grey areas where Fact Checkers might be tempted to feel are in scope for correcting.
iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y ago
A bigger challenge is that arguments on issues are often actually a proxy for some deeper cause: climate change debates ostensibly are about science, but seem mostly about whether we redistribute wealth or exercise control over people. Same with e.g. wearing masks. People try to craft arguments based on science, but the science is almost as irrelevant as it is obvious, the real question people are debating is perspective on how government can limit freedom. People like to hide behind "science says this" because there is usually objective science available, but science provides facts about cause and effect, not priorities, which is what leads to debate, and often blatant distortion of facts. I think a bigger challenge than presenting both sides of an argument is actually getting to the core of what is being debated.
Nowado 6y ago
Or worse cases, where there's more than 2 sides and design decision stops you from noticing it.
- zbyte64 6y ago
  My family was surprised by the insurrection because the two sides presented didn't consider that a realistic possibility. But if one was to listen to leftist podcasts covering the IDW (Intellectual Dark Web) then it's far less surprising. Manufacturing consent is real.
- mistermann 6y ago
  Can you expand on what you mean by this?
  - MockObject 6y ago
    There may be more than two sides to a question posed on this website, but the site only offers two columns.
  - jjj123 6y ago
    Not the OP but I had the same thought. I get frustrated by the “both sides” presented by mainstream media like the NYT, CNN, etc. it’s always democrats on one side, republicans on the other, as if there’s not an entire political spectrum that expands beyond those two. The effect is it limits the “allowed” perspectives to within those two bounds. This is often exploited by those in power to control the bounds of possibility (that’s the manufacturing consent part).
    - stevenicr 6y ago
      Been thinking similar. I've been kicking ideas around on how to make something similar, but with many sides - but how many sides are there really? 5 main groups 10? Been thinking it would be nice to have comments / replies showing the top 3 conservative takes, the top 3 liberal takes, the top 3 science, 3 libertarian? top 3 fiscally conservative/socially liberal etc. Ability to vote up and notate inaccuracies and removing personal attacks / insults.. finding a way to stop trolls from another side upvote frivolous things.. what the icons would look like.. all sorts of things I've been thinking about this. Seeing the two sides thing really makes me feel the 'powers that be' really want people fighting on two sides.
mistermann 6y ago
I would say that this very common phenomenon of people rhetorically/cognitively framing disagreements between people as "both sides", which seems to be commonly interpreted (and I assume, intended) as something like "the 'wrong' side is asserting that these things are 'equivalent/identically equal', which is obviously not true, and therefore their entire argument can be dismissed" is poisoning reality. I think that approaches like this website are a not yet a perfect solution [1], but it feels like a step in the right direction. An improved implementation would have some clever means of allowing a crowd-sourced decomposition of the issue into it's constituent entities and behaviors, graphically displayed in some magical way to maximize the likelihood of everyone seeing the big picture free from misunderstanding, which "all" parties could agree upon (no agreement means more refinement is needed) and refer to in their arguments (so we're all talking about the same thing), and arguments/thinking could take place with precision (attached to the the specific entities and behaviors where the true disagreement resides). A lot of people may have a strong aversion to this approach as it would turn easy argumentation into a painstakingly laborious & pedantic process, which is a natural consequence of using slow but accurate cognitive processing, rather than fast but unreliable heuristic processing (the root problem in the first place). Arguments under such a methodology would also more closely resemble the scientific method, or systems analysis in software (where one does not simply throw together an analysis and insist that it is 100% free of material flaws). See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903747 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903747 The First result for me (https://www.trophi.com/page/600eb2036c0b5800157eb041 https://www.trophi.com/page/600eb2036c0b5800157eb041) is proof why this idea of "all opinions are equal and should be given equal opportunity to be heard" is bunk. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903962 I don't see the point of this platform being to coddle inferior points of view by elevating them to faux equal footing. This logically flawed "both sides" heuristic has become extremely broadly distributed through the system. It very commonly makes an explicit appearance in culture war arguments, and it is surely invisibly participating in cognitive processing even where it does not make a visible appearance. I wonder how many of these bug-ridden heuristics are out there in the wild (there are several others present in this thread already, with only 36 comments), messing up execution for reasons that are not apparent from the UI perspective? If you think of reality as a system (which it technically is) that you had been hired to debug and fix, how might one go about locating all/most instances of such bugs, and then how would you fix them, considering we do not have direct access to the source code, but rather can only "write" to it via the api's that have been made available to us? [1] Someone points out that a sub-component of a more elaborate platform already exists: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25904525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25904525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map I expect most of the necessary components already exist as features embedded in other platforms, if they could all be mashed up together into a new "Collective Cognition" platform of some sort, I think we'd have something really useful on our hands. The biggest missing piece that I can see is a means (a user interface for) decomposing complex problem spaces, and then (more difficultly), a way to visually(?) represent this high dimensional space that is understandable to a very broad cross-section of people (in the shorter run, even something that only "smarter" people could understand would be a good start). Does anyone know of any existing systems out there for the "visual" representation of highly dimensional spaces, in a manner that makes it easy/easier to understand for teams? UML, sequence diagrams, etc are the only approaches I have any awareness of.
MockObject 6y ago
The argument does have two sides, even though one side has loads of evidence and the other doesn't. The other side doesn't just go away. It's kept away by constant refutation.

This "both sides of an argument" thing is poisoning logic. Somethings dont have 2 sides. The earth is round, for instance.

by windex 6y ago

This "both sides of an argument" thing is poisoning logic. Somethings dont have 2 sides. The earth is round, for instance.

est 6y ago

> Somethings dont have 2 sides. The earth is round, for instance Not exactly round, but it's an ellipsoid with an uneven surface.

lhorie 6y ago
Ellipsoids are round, just not radially symmetrical.
lukifer 6y ago
"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." - Isaac Asimov
AndrewStephens 6y ago
You are technically correct (the best kind of correct) but the Earth IS round for most intents and purposes. Only people who need very accurate maps care that it is not. If the Earth was shrunk down to bowling ball size and taken to a lane it would be just as spherical as any of the other balls.
- musicale 6y ago
  I have verified this experimentally.

Karunamon 6y ago

And those incorrect arguments can be listed and directly refuted.

yodelshady 6y ago
By sane people, they already have been. I have no need or desire to "engage with" the idea the Holocaust is a good way to control population (not a hypothetical, that's on the front page as I visited). That's not rational debate, "marketplace of ideas", or whatever you want to call it. It's screeching until everyone else realises there's nothing to gain from being there, and leaves.
zbyte64 6y ago
By the time they have been refuted there's a stack of new arguments. Checkmate atheists.

panchoviz 6y ago

I agree, but maybe the flat earthers need to see how their argument doesn't hold up to logic from the other side.

prohobo 6y ago
That only happens if they are engaged in healthy discussion. A flame war separated into two columns isn't that.
Freaken 6y ago
At a certain point, people get in this so deep that it becomes a religion, and unfortunately logic doesn't help in these cases.
smt88 6y ago
Flat earthers are not going to change their minds based on logic. They are bombarded with evidence and logic any time they mention their beliefs. Contrary information often entrenches their wrong beliefs even further.
cycomanic 6y ago
Have you ever tried to argue with someone who is into conspiracy theories? One of my former best friends went down the deep end. It started with 9/11 conspiracies and just spiralled down from there. I engaged with him, because I care deeply about him, but it just got worse and worse. Initially it was 9/11 and questions about wealth and power distribution and there are some valid questions that can be asked (although all the 9/11 stuff is bonkers). It soon became crazier and crazier, it was about "energy from the vacuum" (essentially a code-word for perpetual motion), how Gates is trying to sterilize the population through vaccination. The irony was that he was seeing himself as a freedom fighter who is speaking the truth to prevent the next fascist regime, completely ignoring that many of the people he followed or supported were literal Nazis. Engaging with him was not possible. He would bombard me with links that somehow were supposed to proof his point. If I brought up counterarguments, he would say that he has strong evidence that one can not believe mainstream media, science, logic ... And that I'm just a sheep blindly following "propaganda" and he knows better. There was absolutely no way of getting through to him or engaging in any kind of discussion. This was just his monologues and flooding me links (many I suspect he did not even read/watch). In the end I had to cut contact, because it was affecting me mentally, the interactions would just leave me exhausted angry and incredibly sad. I don't have a solution, we need to somehow find a way of how people can be drawn into these crazy web of conspiracies and I don't think that creating forums were these crazy things are debated like they are valid opinions is an answer.

maxehmookau 6y ago

Indeed. I notice "The Holocaust could be used as population control" has appeared on the list. Just because a human can put together a thought, doesn't make it good.

bjt2n3904 6y ago

And climate change! And my opinions on gun control! Which arguments are "allowed" to have a side? Given the recent disregard for the concept of freedom of speech, this site seems quaint. These websites always seem to be like an episode of Big Talk.[1] "Alright, let's get this sorted! Does God exist, yes or no?" 1 - https://youtu.be/EUbjpwyesk0 https://youtu.be/EUbjpwyesk0

mancerayder 6y ago

That's true, but that's the price we pay for open discussion. I'll take faulty logic that needs correction over a Philosopher King-style oversight. Because I don't trust oversight not on the question of the Earth's shape, but rather on controversial or grey areas where Fact Checkers might be tempted to feel are in scope for correcting.

iujjkfjdkkdkf 6y ago

A bigger challenge is that arguments on issues are often actually a proxy for some deeper cause: climate change debates ostensibly are about science, but seem mostly about whether we redistribute wealth or exercise control over people. Same with e.g. wearing masks. People try to craft arguments based on science, but the science is almost as irrelevant as it is obvious, the real question people are debating is perspective on how government can limit freedom. People like to hide behind "science says this" because there is usually objective science available, but science provides facts about cause and effect, not priorities, which is what leads to debate, and often blatant distortion of facts. I think a bigger challenge than presenting both sides of an argument is actually getting to the core of what is being debated.

Nowado 6y ago

Or worse cases, where there's more than 2 sides and design decision stops you from noticing it.

zbyte64 6y ago
My family was surprised by the insurrection because the two sides presented didn't consider that a realistic possibility. But if one was to listen to leftist podcasts covering the IDW (Intellectual Dark Web) then it's far less surprising. Manufacturing consent is real.
mistermann 6y ago
Can you expand on what you mean by this?
- MockObject 6y ago
  There may be more than two sides to a question posed on this website, but the site only offers two columns.
- jjj123 6y ago
  Not the OP but I had the same thought. I get frustrated by the “both sides” presented by mainstream media like the NYT, CNN, etc. it’s always democrats on one side, republicans on the other, as if there’s not an entire political spectrum that expands beyond those two. The effect is it limits the “allowed” perspectives to within those two bounds. This is often exploited by those in power to control the bounds of possibility (that’s the manufacturing consent part).
  - stevenicr 6y ago
    Been thinking similar. I've been kicking ideas around on how to make something similar, but with many sides - but how many sides are there really? 5 main groups 10? Been thinking it would be nice to have comments / replies showing the top 3 conservative takes, the top 3 liberal takes, the top 3 science, 3 libertarian? top 3 fiscally conservative/socially liberal etc. Ability to vote up and notate inaccuracies and removing personal attacks / insults.. finding a way to stop trolls from another side upvote frivolous things.. what the icons would look like.. all sorts of things I've been thinking about this. Seeing the two sides thing really makes me feel the 'powers that be' really want people fighting on two sides.

mistermann 6y ago

I would say that this very common phenomenon of people rhetorically/cognitively framing disagreements between people as "both sides", which seems to be commonly interpreted (and I assume, intended) as something like "the 'wrong' side is asserting that these things are 'equivalent/identically equal', which is obviously not true, and therefore their entire argument can be dismissed" is poisoning reality. I think that approaches like this website are a not yet a perfect solution [1], but it feels like a step in the right direction. An improved implementation would have some clever means of allowing a crowd-sourced decomposition of the issue into it's constituent entities and behaviors, graphically displayed in some magical way to maximize the likelihood of everyone seeing the big picture free from misunderstanding, which "all" parties could agree upon (no agreement means more refinement is needed) and refer to in their arguments (so we're all talking about the same thing), and arguments/thinking could take place with precision (attached to the the specific entities and behaviors where the true disagreement resides). A lot of people may have a strong aversion to this approach as it would turn easy argumentation into a painstakingly laborious & pedantic process, which is a natural consequence of using slow but accurate cognitive processing, rather than fast but unreliable heuristic processing (the root problem in the first place). Arguments under such a methodology would also more closely resemble the scientific method, or systems analysis in software (where one does not simply throw together an analysis and insist that it is 100% free of material flaws). See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903747 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903747 The First result for me (https://www.trophi.com/page/600eb2036c0b5800157eb041 https://www.trophi.com/page/600eb2036c0b5800157eb041) is proof why this idea of "all opinions are equal and should be given equal opportunity to be heard" is bunk. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903962 I don't see the point of this platform being to coddle inferior points of view by elevating them to faux equal footing. This logically flawed "both sides" heuristic has become extremely broadly distributed through the system. It very commonly makes an explicit appearance in culture war arguments, and it is surely invisibly participating in cognitive processing even where it does not make a visible appearance. I wonder how many of these bug-ridden heuristics are out there in the wild (there are several others present in this thread already, with only 36 comments), messing up execution for reasons that are not apparent from the UI perspective? If you think of reality as a system (which it technically is) that you had been hired to debug and fix, how might one go about locating all/most instances of such bugs, and then how would you fix them, considering we do not have direct access to the source code, but rather can only "write" to it via the api's that have been made available to us? [1] Someone points out that a sub-component of a more elaborate platform already exists: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25904525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25904525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map I expect most of the necessary components already exist as features embedded in other platforms, if they could all be mashed up together into a new "Collective Cognition" platform of some sort, I think we'd have something really useful on our hands. The biggest missing piece that I can see is a means (a user interface for) decomposing complex problem spaces, and then (more difficultly), a way to visually(?) represent this high dimensional space that is understandable to a very broad cross-section of people (in the shorter run, even something that only "smarter" people could understand would be a good start). Does anyone know of any existing systems out there for the "visual" representation of highly dimensional spaces, in a manner that makes it easy/easier to understand for teams? UML, sequence diagrams, etc are the only approaches I have any awareness of.

MockObject 6y ago

The argument does have two sides, even though one side has loads of evidence and the other doesn't. The other side doesn't just go away. It's kept away by constant refutation.