In my view disputing the adequacy of evidence is a way to evade stating your actual views.
I'm coming from the same place as you in that I've also done debate and been upset that people can argue for stupid stuff
-
-
If you use good methodology, you can only prove things that are true. I would like to help get arguments to that level.
-
I write a lot of stuff about my actual beliefs, but it seems pointless unless I can reach the point where they convince peopl
-
If I knew that my arguments would be equally convincing whether true or false, what's the point in making them?
-
I see refining argument techniques as a necessary prerequisite to talking about real beliefs effectively, not a substitute.
-
Most people involved in overcoming-bias-twitter got there because they had weird ideas they wanted to argue and no one (cont)
-
(cont) would listen because "eh, you can prove anything with arguments". If we want to support our ideas we need better.
-
Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective. In my view you are describing a theory of change that is not supported by any 1/
-
Human history or experience. On the contrary, change has been brought about almost exclusively through the kind of "virtue signaling" 2/
- 17 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
A scientific study that uses crappy methodology can prove whatever you want.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But I feel like that means we need stricter standards for arguments so that you *can't* argue equally well for anything.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.