I experienced a similar epiphany, though I sometimes forget it in the heat of verbal combat. Maybe a good shorthand for what not to do would be something like: neither a mercenary nor a true believer be.
I don’t particularly care if the arguments that defeat the “conversion therapy” bill are good ones, or made in good faith. I just want it gone. And I consider public debate to already be irredeemably compromised, so this isn’t going to make it any worse. I wouldn’t care if Good Helen or Bad Helen knocked it on the head.
It would be remarkable if a person who subjected their own political positions to rigorous review and encountered positions consistent with their own didn't see such positions as representative of good argument or compelling evidence
Very good. Would this be a good way of seeing the difference:
Rationalisation starts with desired outcome and applies emotion to find a logical argument for it.
Reason starts with first principles and is the ability to consider different arguments and find the ones that fit the evidence best, while scanning imperfectly for emotional bias to remove?
While I agree with the general thesis of your essay—that a bad argument remains a bad argument regardless of how eloquently it is presented, though I think there are some nuances worth addressing—I find it more difficult to separate the argument from its author in this particular case.
Based on your other work, I sometimes get the impression that what you regard as a “good argument” or compelling evidence often aligns rather closely with your broader political leaning. That is not necessarily a problem in itself—we all have biases—but it can make it difficult to determine whether a position is being evaluated on its merits or through an existing ideological lens.
Part of the reason I say this is that you frequently restack posts that lavish praise on your intelligence and insight. Over time, this can create the impression that you are particularly receptive to arguments that both align with your views and flatter your self-image. Fair or not, it can make it seem as though agreement and admiration are being treated as indicators of a good argument, which contributes to my suspicion of confirmation bias.
Of course, I may be mistaken. This is simply the impression I have formed from your recent posts, and I remain open to being proven wrong. But if the principle of evaluating arguments independently of one’s prior commitments is truly important, then it seems fair to ask whether that standard is being applied consistently across the political spectrum.
I experienced a similar epiphany, though I sometimes forget it in the heat of verbal combat. Maybe a good shorthand for what not to do would be something like: neither a mercenary nor a true believer be.
I don’t particularly care if the arguments that defeat the “conversion therapy” bill are good ones, or made in good faith. I just want it gone. And I consider public debate to already be irredeemably compromised, so this isn’t going to make it any worse. I wouldn’t care if Good Helen or Bad Helen knocked it on the head.
It would be remarkable if a person who subjected their own political positions to rigorous review and encountered positions consistent with their own didn't see such positions as representative of good argument or compelling evidence
Very good. Would this be a good way of seeing the difference:
Rationalisation starts with desired outcome and applies emotion to find a logical argument for it.
Reason starts with first principles and is the ability to consider different arguments and find the ones that fit the evidence best, while scanning imperfectly for emotional bias to remove?
While I agree with the general thesis of your essay—that a bad argument remains a bad argument regardless of how eloquently it is presented, though I think there are some nuances worth addressing—I find it more difficult to separate the argument from its author in this particular case.
Based on your other work, I sometimes get the impression that what you regard as a “good argument” or compelling evidence often aligns rather closely with your broader political leaning. That is not necessarily a problem in itself—we all have biases—but it can make it difficult to determine whether a position is being evaluated on its merits or through an existing ideological lens.
Part of the reason I say this is that you frequently restack posts that lavish praise on your intelligence and insight. Over time, this can create the impression that you are particularly receptive to arguments that both align with your views and flatter your self-image. Fair or not, it can make it seem as though agreement and admiration are being treated as indicators of a good argument, which contributes to my suspicion of confirmation bias.
Of course, I may be mistaken. This is simply the impression I have formed from your recent posts, and I remain open to being proven wrong. But if the principle of evaluating arguments independently of one’s prior commitments is truly important, then it seems fair to ask whether that standard is being applied consistently across the political spectrum.