3 ms·

> I think this is the key quote. It should really be taboo to have an opinion without an understanding of how the other side argues. It's a nice quote, but I d

> I think this is the key quote. It should really be taboo to have an opinion without an understanding of how the other side argues. It's a nice quote, but I don't find it accurate for all topics. Should I be trying to figure out how to make passionate arguments for the Q Conspiracy nuttiness? There are lots of antivaxx conspiracy theories that are pretty close to mainstream in parts of the US - should I be trying to figure out how to make a passionate argument for those? For many of these conspiracy theories the 'understanding' part should probably be more along the lines of epistemic forensics - "What kind of misinformation got them to this point?"

bena 5y ago
It's not accurate for all topics. Can you make a passionate argument for a flat Earth? One that isn't rooted in ignorance or denial of something basic? So obviously there are some topics in which you can understand the issue well, but still not be able to make a credible defense of the other side. Now, the point of the exercise is valid. We should always be approaching an issue from the perspective of "What am I missing?" or "How am I wrong?" Of course, bad faith debaters will ask this of you while not doing it themselves. Or they will do so only superficially. They won't actually try to disprove themselves. Which makes discussing things with such people exhausting.
aidenn0 5y ago
I don't know that you should absolutely not have an opinion without understanding the other side, but if you don't spend at least a little bit of time understanding what motivates people to believe in conspiracy theories you will struggle to understand over half the population of the US. Most of the main tenets of QAnon are recycled conspiracy theories that predate Q, which is why the "X% of people believe in QAnon" headlines that have been going around recently are so misleading. Epistemic forensics is necessary for an awful lot of things people believe (true or false) given that for many things personal experience is insufficient to uncover the truth, and for any single truth, only a tiny fraction of the population is making direct observations at scale.

bena 5y ago

It's not accurate for all topics. Can you make a passionate argument for a flat Earth? One that isn't rooted in ignorance or denial of something basic? So obviously there are some topics in which you can understand the issue well, but still not be able to make a credible defense of the other side. Now, the point of the exercise is valid. We should always be approaching an issue from the perspective of "What am I missing?" or "How am I wrong?" Of course, bad faith debaters will ask this of you while not doing it themselves. Or they will do so only superficially. They won't actually try to disprove themselves. Which makes discussing things with such people exhausting.

aidenn0 5y ago

I don't know that you should absolutely not have an opinion without understanding the other side, but if you don't spend at least a little bit of time understanding what motivates people to believe in conspiracy theories you will struggle to understand over half the population of the US. Most of the main tenets of QAnon are recycled conspiracy theories that predate Q, which is why the "X% of people believe in QAnon" headlines that have been going around recently are so misleading. Epistemic forensics is necessary for an awful lot of things people believe (true or false) given that for many things personal experience is insufficient to uncover the truth, and for any single truth, only a tiny fraction of the population is making direct observations at scale.