[AKrumbach]

> Which makes me ask the question: do you, gentle Hacker News reader, really want diversity of opinion and why?

I speak only for myself, but the answer is an absolute, complete and emphatic YES. The reason is quite simple: in all of human history, there have been only three "families", broadly speaking, of epistemological methods[1]:

* Mysticism: you have been told what is true by an unquestionable (and often distant) authority. Think Moses descending from the mountain--only he can safely speak to God. While God is ultimately the original [claimed] source of the knowledge, it must be funneled through Moses first.

* Socratic debate: two humans can talk about the topic, trying to apply abstract reason to determine the "best" answer. Note that in a "pure" Socratic debate, only logic and not any evidence is used.

* Scientific study: humans can attempt direct inquiry of an answer from the physical universe. Note that logic need not apply to scientific answers: the results of many particle physics experiments such as the delayed choice quantum eraser are not "logical" in that they violate what "common sense" tells us the universe should allow.

Now, there no reason I had to use a religious example for the first family, but they do not exist for the other two: literally, both debate and science cannot work correctly if you do not admit the possibility of contrarian or "heretical" ideas.

Since I wish to live in a society jointly directed by reason and science, I must allow (and to some small extent, seek) contrarian and heretical ideas.

1: I'm speaking of epistemology not in the definition taught in philosophical classes (e.g., "How do we know what is real or what is knowledge?"), but a far more direct, literal, and practical application of how knowledge is generated and transmitted between societies/individuals.

[narrator]

The thing about Socratic debate is that to do it well, and actually produce NEW information that's not the two sides yelling stuff they already believe at each other, the two sides need to agree to not engage in any of the informal or logical fallacies. Not a lot of people are familiar with the informal fallacies. Since they are arguments that can be used to support any argument, when I'm debating something online and I'm in the mood for putting work into it, I will use fallacies used against me to prove the exact opposite of the argument the fallacy user is trying to make. Anybody who has some education in rhetoric can adopt this technique. It makes arguing on internet forums kind of fun because it at least allows for an opportunity to demonstrate the reasons behind rhetorical rules. This is what these free speech platforms are good for, because you can really get into it with people in a debate before it gets cut off for not being polite enough to popularly held fallacious ideas.

For example, I sometimes go on to right wing forum and argue that the Jews are unfairly targeted for criticism as a group. It's a challenge to bring people around, but for some reason I kind of enjoy it. It's like fight club for my brain.

I think the fallacious arguments are getting more automated lately. I was once on a thread where there was some sort of auto-insult bot that would just hurl insults. I would reply with the insult back with the terms switched around. The lazy shill, or the bot would reply back. This went back and forth for a while until I asked the other guy if he was a bot and then it stopped.