Discussion about this post

User's avatar
AcousticTheory's avatar

I think there's an inherent fallacy here: The reason "why" someone is motivated to think up an argument, or whether they come to the process of generating an argument with any a-priori beliefs about whether their hypothesis is correct or incorrect does not naturally impugn the argument itself; either the argument is effective or it isn't. A person won't usually be motivated to think up an argument for a conclusion they themselves don't have any personal investment in, so rather than the quality of argumentation becoming better if people deprecate their own a-priori beliefs while deciding to formulate an argument, the arguments will just go away. Which will suit one side or another just fine. Beyond evaluating the arguments, anything further from these luminaries is just complaining.

Expand full comment
Overcoming Bias Commenter's avatar

Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” We usually accuse the religious or political groups of engaging in this behavior, but there may indeed be a universal tendency to this perseverance. Maybe Dennett especially.

Expand full comment
23 more comments...

No posts