4 ms·

> That isn't making them look like an idiot, reducing them, or demolishing their position. I think he's saying that he can reduce his opponent to those words -

> That isn't making them look like an idiot, reducing them, or demolishing their position. I think he's saying that he can reduce his opponent to those words - i.e., the author's argument fits together, the opponent says "it's just wrong" and gets frustrated.

jodrellblank 3y ago
I agree that's what he's saying, and I'm saying that is not demolishing the opponent's position. Scott is going up to a castle, talking to the walls until he thinks they should collapse, then when they don't collapse he's declaring victory by "making the walls look idiotic" and telling people he "demolished the castle walls". If you haven't actually convinced your opponent, and you haven't changed their mind, and you haven't understood their true objections, and you haven't presented a convincing enough case for your position for them (arguing in good faith) to accept, you haven't won, there's an underwater-iceburg chunk still missing. Like, if I claim 2 is the largest possible number, and show you 1+1, and you say "1+1 is coherent and logical and fits together ... I can't place the flaw but something's not right and I still don't believe you", I can't go around reasonably telling people I demolished you with my proof that 2 is the biggest number and you look idiotic for not believing me.
- nuancebydefault 3y ago
  The thing is, often people cannot be convinced of some statement, not because they are so convinced of their own stance, but because leaving their stance feels bad and might even question their own identity (what they stand for). Only after all those years i came to that conclusion, after a lot of arguing and debating. And that relates to what the article says, we just nod and still keep our position because the other's arguments feel concise at first sight but just feel weird. Any rebuttal attempt very often feels futile and useless.

jodrellblank 3y ago

I agree that's what he's saying, and I'm saying that is not demolishing the opponent's position. Scott is going up to a castle, talking to the walls until he thinks they should collapse, then when they don't collapse he's declaring victory by "making the walls look idiotic" and telling people he "demolished the castle walls". If you haven't actually convinced your opponent, and you haven't changed their mind, and you haven't understood their true objections, and you haven't presented a convincing enough case for your position for them (arguing in good faith) to accept, you haven't won, there's an underwater-iceburg chunk still missing. Like, if I claim 2 is the largest possible number, and show you 1+1, and you say "1+1 is coherent and logical and fits together ... I can't place the flaw but something's not right and I still don't believe you", I can't go around reasonably telling people I demolished you with my proof that 2 is the biggest number and you look idiotic for not believing me.

nuancebydefault 3y ago
The thing is, often people cannot be convinced of some statement, not because they are so convinced of their own stance, but because leaving their stance feels bad and might even question their own identity (what they stand for). Only after all those years i came to that conclusion, after a lot of arguing and debating. And that relates to what the article says, we just nod and still keep our position because the other's arguments feel concise at first sight but just feel weird. Any rebuttal attempt very often feels futile and useless.