[dalbasal]

The majority of all argument, debates, polemics... it's all "hacks." We're all dirty tricks, if we're being honest.

Formalizing and naming templates of fallacies and dirty tricks... it's kind of a fallacious trick in itself.

Logically valid, convincing, and the way we actually think a completely different. There are places where these come together, often requiring a lot of effort.

The reality that we, all of us, way through the slush. None rise above it.

To take the least noxious example, stories work on us. Stories. Narratives. They're very central to communicating, central to how we make sense of things. Who is what in which story.

Telling the story, is unanimously agreed by all practitioners.. primary to convincing people, or even getting them to listen to you in the first place.

Is this logically sound? Is it conducive to keeping track of one's assumptions, presumptions and biases? Of course not. It is, how we work though.

The way formal logic works, and the way we think, talk and convince one another.. they are very far apart. That doesn't mean we can't grasp logic. We can. It does mean, that we don't employ it on its own very often.

The argument that would take, this post is the "central" path. The other half of this dichotomy. The assumed default state.

People say things for a lot of reasons, and then argue their way back.

[mistermann]

> The way formal logic works, and the way we think, talk and convince one another.. they are very far apart.

Strict logic is "pedantry", "JAQing off", Sea-lioning, "conspiratorial thinking", etc. I know of no social media platform where this is not true (based on replies and voting). And (seemingly) ironically, "scientific thinkers" are often particularly prone to the phenomenon.

> That doesn't mean we can't grasp logic. We can.

That which is physically possible is not necessarily metaphysically possible. People can use logic sometimes, but very often it is culturally (thus consciously) non-permissible, like during COVID[1], war time[2], etc.

I am not aware of any current or historical attempts to solve this problem, the scientific method being somewhat of a specialized exception.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38332076

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38332346

[aDyslecticCrow]

I don't remember who i got this from. But It's been part of my thoughts since.

Smart people are dangerously good at finding compelling rational arguments for any position. Logic and reasoning has no guarantee what-so-ever to end up correct.

Communism is perfectly rational. So is is national socialism, slavery, "a modest proposal", "Brave new world". Self reasoning may just make you more stubborn.

two things i think helps? but that may just me by own rationality tricking me.

1. Limit the death of the argument. Don't go too many steps away from the axioms or assumptions. Leaps of logic give us the most freedom to creatively warp the outcome.

2. Die on all the hills. Argue your misguided ideas loudly and proud to your peers. Discussing dumb ideas is the only way to find what dumb idea is the least dumb.

Being scared of being wrong, and aligning with others, leaves dumb ideas unchallenged, and dumber ideas unexplored.

[mistermann]

[Please pardon the snark, it is in my nature.]

>Smart people are dangerously good at finding compelling rational arguments for any position.

A much(!) smaller set of smart people can poke holes in such persuasive arguments with ease. The response with rare exceptions will be memes and rhetoric, &/or downvotes, silence, bans or rate limiting on one's account (helping to ensure humans stay locked in their local maxima indefinitely...say, have you seen what's happening in the Middle East, with our unwavering "democratic" support, again?).

> Logic and reasoning has no guarantee what-so-ever to end up correct.

Abstractly, of course not, but at the object level it depends.

>Communism is perfectly rational.

Make the case, and watch me poke holes in it. If this was well implemented as a game, I could even predict how your argument could be attacked before you even state it, and then reveal my predictions after your move and see how close I got.

A problem though: how to judge, since all participants (including me) suffer from delusion?

> Self reasoning may just make you more stubborn.

Love the strategically played "may"! What's the "just" doing in there though?

> Limit the death of the argument. Don't go too many steps away from the axioms or assumptions. Leaps of logic give us the most freedom to creatively warp the outcome.

Artificially constraining scope is excellent for rhetoric and deceit (and thus very popular, in Western culture at least), but perhaps not so useful for discovering truth.

> Die on all the hills. Argue your misguided ideas loudly and proud to your peers.

100% agree. A problem though: culture disallows this. I believe humans have some free will, but not much (for now).

>Discussing dumb ideas is the only way to find what dumb idea is the least dumb.

"Discussing" is ontologically ambiguous, and we've been discussing many ideas for centuries, with little positive outcome. Time for some new approaches if you ask me (man, it sure was a hot summer this year eh?).

>Being scared of being wrong, and aligning with others, leaves dumb ideas unchallenged, and dumber ideas unexplored.

Welcome to HN, and planet Earth (2023). Let's check back in in a few years. :)