8 ms·

> A good argument made with bad intentions is still a good argument. I agree with your parent here, though. There's almost always a good argument for any given

by nmrm 12y ago

> A good argument made with bad intentions is still a good argument. I agree with your parent here, though. There's almost always a good argument for any given thing, and often several. It's sometimes useful to be able to say "yes, there is a huge pile of good arguments in favor of X here. And I don't have time to address each one. But it's important to note that the author of this pile of good arguments stands to make a great deal of money if people believe X, regardless of its truth." It's kind-of like how you rarely trust the implicit or explicit claims in super long infomercials, even without examining the veracity of the evidence for the commercial's claims, or taking the time to think up counter-claims.

pessimizer 12y ago
>There's almost always a good argument for any given thing, and often several. And if there aren't better arguments for the other things, then those are the things that should be done. If you're telling me that there are almost always equally good arguments for every possible choice in all decisions that are made, I'm disagreeing with that. If that's not what you're saying, I don't know what you're saying. >It's sometimes useful to be able to say "yes, there is a huge pile of good arguments in favor of X here. And I don't have time to address each one. But it's important to note that the author of this pile of good arguments stands to make a great deal of money if people believe X, regardless of its truth." It may be important to note, but it's not argumentation. If it's a good argument, accept that it's a good argument and move on. Just because people have a financial interest in an outcome doesn't mean that their arguments for that outcome are tainted in some undetectable way that can't be revealed by examining the argument itself. The personal stake in the outcome could have been initiated by a belief in the validity of the argument, rather than the opposite. >It's kind-of like how you rarely trust the implicit or explicit claims in super long infomercials, even without examining the veracity of the evidence for the commercial's claims, or taking the time to think up counter-claims. You don't need to attack the person making the argument or the medium delivering the argument in order to question its premises.
- nmrm 12y ago
  I think our fundamental disagreement boils down to a question of tractability. It's not that better arguments don't exist. Rather, it's a matter of whether the argument is even worth our time. > It may be important to note, but it's not argumentation. Isn't it? The end effect is disregarding a certain set of arguments entirely. If completely ignoring the relevance of an argument isn't a powerful argumentative tool, I'm not sure what is. > You don't need to attack the person making the argument or the medium delivering the argument in order to question its premises. But isn't that exactly what's happening in the infomercial case? And surely we shouldn't waste our (bounded, finite) time addressing, point-by-point, infomercial arguments? I have something more practical and less specific in mind as well. You'll find all manner of conspiracy theorists. The more serious ones can bash you over the head with truth claim after truth claim. At some point, in order to avoid endless rabbit holes, it becomes necessary to disregard certain arguments simply because of their source. I typically do this with a 9/11 truther friend (also chem trains and luminati (sp?) and so on), and only consider his factoids non-fictional when I hear them from other sources as well. There's also an important distinction between attacking the source per se, and attacking the source's credibility/veracity in the argument at hand. We might be talking past each other due to that distinction as well. edit: ambiguous grammar
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    >Isn't it? The end effect is disregarding a certain set of arguments entirely. If completely ignoring the relevance of an argument isn't a powerful argumentative tool, I'm not sure what is. Why would you do that? For me it's important to note because premises are assertions, and conflicts of interest raise the likelihood that the premises have been deliberately constructed as to be false or misleading. The idea that I would throw out someone's argument because I've decided that it must be wrong in advance seems ludicrous. Arguments should rise or fall on their own merits. >But isn't that exactly what's happening in the infomercial case? And surely we shouldn't waste our (bounded, finite) time addressing, point-by-point, infomercial arguments? Why exactly wouldn't we, and why would we assume that the claims that are made in infomercials are uniformly false? The reason I don't waste my time vetting the arguments in infomercials is because I'm not currently interested in a juicer, not because of a belief that people who make infomercials are liars, no matter how consistent their arguments or verifiable their premises. >I typically do this with a 9/11 truther friend (also chem trains and luminati (sp?) and so on), and only consider his factoids non-fictional when I hear them from other sources as well. I don't. The reason I ignore truthers is because their logic is consistently bad, and their premises are usually demonstrably false. Those reasons came after listening to their arguments, not before. There are plenty of questionable elements in the official narrative, too, but they're not in the same order of magnitude as the leaps of logic made by truthers.

by nmrm 12y ago

pessimizer 12y ago

>There's almost always a good argument for any given thing, and often several. And if there aren't better arguments for the other things, then those are the things that should be done. If you're telling me that there are almost always equally good arguments for every possible choice in all decisions that are made, I'm disagreeing with that. If that's not what you're saying, I don't know what you're saying. >It's sometimes useful to be able to say "yes, there is a huge pile of good arguments in favor of X here. And I don't have time to address each one. But it's important to note that the author of this pile of good arguments stands to make a great deal of money if people believe X, regardless of its truth." It may be important to note, but it's not argumentation. If it's a good argument, accept that it's a good argument and move on. Just because people have a financial interest in an outcome doesn't mean that their arguments for that outcome are tainted in some undetectable way that can't be revealed by examining the argument itself. The personal stake in the outcome could have been initiated by a belief in the validity of the argument, rather than the opposite. >It's kind-of like how you rarely trust the implicit or explicit claims in super long infomercials, even without examining the veracity of the evidence for the commercial's claims, or taking the time to think up counter-claims. You don't need to attack the person making the argument or the medium delivering the argument in order to question its premises.

nmrm 12y ago
I think our fundamental disagreement boils down to a question of tractability. It's not that better arguments don't exist. Rather, it's a matter of whether the argument is even worth our time. > It may be important to note, but it's not argumentation. Isn't it? The end effect is disregarding a certain set of arguments entirely. If completely ignoring the relevance of an argument isn't a powerful argumentative tool, I'm not sure what is. > You don't need to attack the person making the argument or the medium delivering the argument in order to question its premises. But isn't that exactly what's happening in the infomercial case? And surely we shouldn't waste our (bounded, finite) time addressing, point-by-point, infomercial arguments? I have something more practical and less specific in mind as well. You'll find all manner of conspiracy theorists. The more serious ones can bash you over the head with truth claim after truth claim. At some point, in order to avoid endless rabbit holes, it becomes necessary to disregard certain arguments simply because of their source. I typically do this with a 9/11 truther friend (also chem trains and luminati (sp?) and so on), and only consider his factoids non-fictional when I hear them from other sources as well. There's also an important distinction between attacking the source per se, and attacking the source's credibility/veracity in the argument at hand. We might be talking past each other due to that distinction as well. edit: ambiguous grammar
- pessimizer 12y ago
  >Isn't it? The end effect is disregarding a certain set of arguments entirely. If completely ignoring the relevance of an argument isn't a powerful argumentative tool, I'm not sure what is. Why would you do that? For me it's important to note because premises are assertions, and conflicts of interest raise the likelihood that the premises have been deliberately constructed as to be false or misleading. The idea that I would throw out someone's argument because I've decided that it must be wrong in advance seems ludicrous. Arguments should rise or fall on their own merits. >But isn't that exactly what's happening in the infomercial case? And surely we shouldn't waste our (bounded, finite) time addressing, point-by-point, infomercial arguments? Why exactly wouldn't we, and why would we assume that the claims that are made in infomercials are uniformly false? The reason I don't waste my time vetting the arguments in infomercials is because I'm not currently interested in a juicer, not because of a belief that people who make infomercials are liars, no matter how consistent their arguments or verifiable their premises. >I typically do this with a 9/11 truther friend (also chem trains and luminati (sp?) and so on), and only consider his factoids non-fictional when I hear them from other sources as well. I don't. The reason I ignore truthers is because their logic is consistently bad, and their premises are usually demonstrably false. Those reasons came after listening to their arguments, not before. There are plenty of questionable elements in the official narrative, too, but they're not in the same order of magnitude as the leaps of logic made by truthers.