[Dumblydorr]

They never mention they could’ve been wrong. The author assumes they’re always right, but that trying to convince others and argue them to their right side is not valuable.

How about: maybe I’m wrong and I didn’t let their ideas influence me. How about: even when I think I’m right, it will be better to calmly kindly discuss, listening as much as talking, not debating or arguing or speaking over them, but attempting to see new perspectives.

I could well be wrong about this :)

[MichaelApproved]

The point being made is to pick your battles.

The author’s point is that, even if you are correct 100% of the time, fighting every battle is toxic to yourself and everyone around you.

They are saying to look past the fact that you might be right and consider that it’s not worth the effort anyway.

Now, I will attempt to put down my phone and not respond to any replies I get to the contrary.

Sweating intensifies…

[malfist]

I've been reading the writings of stoic philosophers each morning and journaling about what I read and I think this fits in well with that philosophy. We're all here on Earth to enrich ourselves (and I don't mean materially) and those around us. Arguing with strangers online is antithetical to that premise. You don't better yourself by engaging in pointless squabbling, and you don't enrich the other person or those around you by doing so. They probably won't change their mind, and you're probably not going to either. If the outcome is foretold, what's the value produced from the effort?

Epictetus writes that the truely educated aren't quarrelsome. "The beautiful and good person neither fights with anyone nor, as much as they are able, permits others to fight.. this is the meaning of getting an education - learning what is your own affair and what is not. If a person carries themselves so, where is there any room for fighting?"

What is the goal when you start arguing with someone online? Is that goal achievable?

[cogman10]

> What is the goal when you start arguing with someone online? Is that goal achievable?

For me the goal is twofold. I'm arguing for the people reading the comment chain, not necessarily the commenter's sake. I know it's nearly impossible to convince someone you are arguing with. But also I do try and have an open mind. It's not common that I change my position, but it does happen.

For example, I was once a climate change denier. It was debating with people online which caused me to reflect and change that position.

[malfist]

> I'm arguing for the people reading the comment chain, not necessarily the commenter's sake.

I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online. All too often these days, folks are just engaging in point scoring type arguments and readers just agree with their tribe.

Not saying it doesn't happen, nor that it's a good goal taken with care. But me personally the ROI just isn't there (your calculus is different, and that's okay!)

A lot of times when I engage in arguments online, I think of it more as showing nuance to a person. I'm not trying to persuade them, I'm not trying to win, I'm just trying to show them that the problem space is a bit more complicated than their view is showing them. At least that's how I justify it to myself when I do engage. And of course, I'm no where close to perfect, I engage in petty point scoring arguments because it feels good at the time but isn't fruitful or healthy in the long run.

[JumpCrisscross]

> I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online

I do, and I have. I’ve also argued something with someone and come out the other side convinced of their position. (Sometimes immediately. More often down the road. Nevertheless, a valuable exchange.)

[EvanAnderson]

A very similar experience here. Reading comment threads over the years has absolutely turned me on to perspectives I never even conceived of previously. I've reconsidered my positions (on political and technical matters, mainly) by reading the discourse in comment threads.

[rho4]

> I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online

HN comments sway me more than any other source nowadays. Reading comments not directed at myself probably makes it easier because my ego does not feel attacked.

[datsci_est_2015]

> I'm not sure people are reading comment chains deeply enough to be swayed by two strangers arguing online.

Counterpoint, literally doing that right now in this thread as I’m considering the merits of online discourse in the context of stoicism.

[malfist]

I'm glad to be wrong!

[firesteelrain]

The only times it has helped is when I am researching something like say gardening or researching a product. I find the back and forth between people helpful in making my decision on what to do.

[laurentlassalle]

Personally, I really enjoy reading the back and forth :-)

[juleiie]

Honestly if you change your opinion under effect of some online strangers then it wasn't a strong conviction in the first place

[cogman10]

The online stranger's argument was convincing because they brought a lot of evidence from research papers to general climatologist opinions which completely debunked a lot of the talking points I'd used (without me exposing those in the conversation).

It also made me go back on my own sources and question where they were coming from. Let's just say the anti climate change positions become a lot less convincing when you dig into their sourcing and find a large number of them literally funded by the likes of Koch industries or Glenn Beck's personal companies.

[juleiie]

Climate change being anthropogenic is so easy to verify nowadays that when someone has contrary conviction it isn’t because they don’t know the data.

Data won’t help it at all. It’s available two clicks away, there is no shortage of it.

People want to believe otherwise and you will never actually convince anyone on the internet using data on anything in 99% of the cases.

Persuasion is an art and most of the people on the internet have no clue how to manipulate human mind to instil beliefs.

I can give a short rundown on persuasion as non autistic individual actually having those skills:

1. Always say that you understand somebody point of view. Appear interested in what they have to say and respect their beliefs.

2. Intertwine few uncomfortable questions in their point of view, very gently and non argumentative. These are the seeds of doubt.

You are a farmer it’s like gardening and watering a flower. You must be gentle with new sprouts of doubt. Tend to the garden of new beliefs and one day they will bear fruit.

[grayhatter]

You say that like it's a bad thing, and not the defining characteristic of an well educated and well rounded human.

One of the best ways humans have developed for information transfer is rhetorical debate. You're supposed to argue for whatever you believe in vehemently, but critically, abandoning it as much as necessary to adopt a better, more accurate understanding or model.

Unquestioned or unchallenged ideas are significantly less valuable than challenged or improved ones. Arguing for and defending what you know is a good thing, holding on to convictions that aren't improving your life or the life of others is fucking stupid. And the idea that you can't learn something from another human because the medium is the Internet, is certainly a take to read from someone making a comment on the internet.

[csrse]

Why? If the argument is well argued, and makes you have better understanding of the issue, does it teally matter who you argue with? Can you only have your deeply held convictions changed from your own sphere? The implications are a bit disheartening in that case.

[juleiie]

Nobody thinks this way about actual strong convictions they held like belief in god or abortion or polygamy.

This works only for very narrow set of topics about numbers and data.

Even the same academics that would change their mind quickly about some theory would never actually change their mind on their strong ideological convictions. I know it from real life examples.

Strange that it needs to be articulated so loud and clear.

So I repeat again if you changed your mind under influence of an internet stranger then it wasn’t a very strong conviction.

[Tangurena2]

I think that you are thinking of faith rather than something reasoned.

[8note]

people tend to like things more the more times they're exposed to it.

that includes other people, ideas, and arguments.

people dont change their mind by considering the evidence, its emotional and you confabulate the new reason for your new preferences

[9rx]

Of course, the genetic fallacy is just that: a fallacy.

[ikidd]

I waver between "I'm not going to convince anyone anyway, and they'll retreat to their echo chamber and be right back where they were" and "The world would be better if we fight for what's right, and speech is the only ethical way to do that".

I'm tired, Boss...

[lotsofpulp]

>They probably won't change their mind, and you're probably not going to either. If the outcome is foretold, what's the value produced from the effort?

The outcome is not foretold. I have learned a lot from being corrected by someone who knows more than me or points out a fault in my assumptions/logic. I have also learned from seeing subject matter experts arguing with each other.

[win311fwg]

> You don't better yourself by engaging in pointless squabbling

Not always, but it is at least always entertainment. If the alternative you would have chosen is watching a mindless movie then you're no worse off.

> and you don't enrich the other person or those around you by doing so.

It is inherently a solitary activity. You are right that the likelihood of a bystander gaining anything from it is nearly zero, but there was never any reason to think they would. It was never about them. Squabbling, as you call it, happens so you can learn about yourself.

[threethirtytwo]

Engage in arguments that decide the direction of a project.

[Aunche]

> What is the goal when you start arguing with someone online? Is that goal achievable?

I'm sure this is some sort of confirmation bias, I've noticed fewer stupid talking points for topics where I argue about online. I doubt it has any impact in people's political beliefs, but people end up being slightly less ideological and more hedgey. IMO, establishment figures are too dismissive about engaging with the public because they think they're above it, but this is how you end up with DOGE laying off departments only to beg for them back.

Also, honestly, I just enjoy the feeling of putting a dumb person in their place. Occasionally, I'm the dumb person, but I don't really mind that since I'm not really tied to any viewpoint. Being more informed also satisfies my mild superiority complex. Also, even if I don't learn from others, generally learn from the process of defining my arguments.

[mathieuh]

Check out the sceptic Sextus Empiricus. Hackett has a collection of his writings. Admittedly he was strongly opposed to the stoics as he considered them dogmatists, but at its heart scepticism is the idea that we should hold all arguments about non-evident things in suspension of judgement, because against any argument put forward we can balance an equally plausible argument. Instead, we should "turn our back upon the whole dispute and go back to talking and acting like a civilised, common-sensical man instead of a pedantic dogmatist".

I personally wasn't too convinced by scepticism but it was an interesting read nevertheless and I did take some bits away from it.

[malfist]

I will do that, thanks for the recommendation. Stoics are a mixed bag for me, I definitely had a better opinion of them before I actually read their works. Most of my journalling is about how blatantly obvious and non-helpful their writings often are, or how they miss the point. But there are certainly value in the general guidelines and they certainly have nuggets of value. I find they add flavor to my personal philosophy, but don't dictate it. After I get through my book of writings, I was planning on moving on to humanists and Camus.

[throw4847285]

Put me in the Nietzsche camp: stoicism is self-tyranny. It's a denial of feeling disguised as overcoming it.

[mattw2121]

Do you have a recommendation to start reading about stoicism, but potentially not the early philosophers? A more modern text?

[malfist]

Check out Ryan Holiday's books! There's the Daily Stoic that is a daily meditation on a stoic writing, one page to read and think about each day, and then there's also a journaling prompt one. I use the meditation book, and then often find Ryan Holiday's curation useful, but his trimming of context a bit too aggressive to give him the ability to put it all on one page, so I might read the source along with what is written there.

Most of the stoic writings are letters and aren't super long. They're very approachable!

[mattw2121]

Thank you!

[satvikpendem]

The goal is karma farming and the feeling of smug superiority over others, especially when they get downvoted or flagged and you don't.

[threethirtytwo]

The value is in the feeling of euphoria you get when dominating the other person by being unequivocally right.

This isn’t philosophy. It’s biology. Every human feels good when this happens and millions of years of evolution has made most humans have feelings of euphoria when being right. The fact that this thread even exists speaks to the fact of the extremely high survival benefit this behavior confers onto a human.

So the question is why is there a survival benefit to humans almost universally having these emotions after taking the action of arguing (and winning)?

I think it’s more than just winning. You win in front of a crowd. And going in the technological direction you set and being more right then another heightens your value in the hierarchy. Your reputation in the crowd confers survival benefit to you and that is why arguing is in our genetics.

No philosophical analysis can beat one from a scientific and logical perspective.

But this begs the question why does this thread even exist? Why are there so many people against their own “programmed” nature of arguing? Because almost everyone who has “evolved” this trait also evolved the opposing trait of “agreeing” with that stoic philosophy.

If you lose an argument your survival benefit goes down because your reputation goes down. Being wrong all the time makes you look like an idiot.

So humans have dual opposing traits. We love to argue and we want to avoid it either. The push and pull between these two conflicts ultimately ends up in a singular decision that can go either way. That’s the ultimate meaning and reasoning behind all of this.

What is the best strategy? Find a system that wins arguments. Engage in arguments where you can win and dominate. It’s not as attractive as the stoic philosophy but I came to this analysis via raw logic using the biological universal mechanism that affects us all and I believe that makes my view point much stronger then stoicism which was arrived at via a less comprehensive mode of reasoning.

Boom.

[kevinsync]

> No philosophical analysis can beat one from a scientific and logical perspective.

I disagree, and offer the world of 2026 as anecdotal evidence lol. Most of what you wrote implies that every person participates in arguments honestly, with full faith, and are both cognitively capable of, and actively willing to, receive, evaluate and ultimately accept the argument as a zero-sum "winner". In reality, illogical appeals to emotion tend to win the day.

This also kind of refuses to acknowledge that a lot of people simply don't feel the need to be right; some people move in silence, others just don't care for the friction, or need the accolades. Still others don't enjoy the company of self-righteous, unbending, argumentative people, or have wildly different perspectives on a topic due to life experiences that are unfathomable to the rest.

I believe that multiple things can often be right simultaneously, and it's exactly that kind of positive sum philosophy that drives the most argumentative and need-to-be-right people completely insane haha. Different strokes for different folks man.

[threethirtytwo]

> In reality, illogical appeals to emotion tend to win the day

Not to a neutral party. Debates and arguments that can change the course of a project happen in front of a neutral committee (ideally) in that case logic can win.

> This also kind of refuses to acknowledge that a lot of people simply don't feel the need to be right; some people move in silence, others just don't care for the friction, or need the accolades. Still others don't enjoy the company of self-righteous, unbending, argumentative people, or have wildly different perspectives on a topic due to life experiences that are unfathomable to the rest.

I didn’t refuse to acknowledge. Did you even read my post? I said people feel both. The need to argue and the need to avoid it. Most people feel it on sort of an even 5050 ground but there are some people who of course swing one way or the other. If you describe the human condition in general and not get into specifics or edge cases. Overall the most apt description is a duality.

> I believe that multiple things can often be right simultaneously, and it's exactly that kind of positive sum philosophy that drives the most argumentative and need-to-be-right people completely insane haha. Different strokes for different folks man.

Did you read my post? I feel you read the first part and felt the need to argue your point without consideration to the topic at hand. My entire post is about a conflicting duality when it comes to arguing. You embody your own stereotype you describe.

[kevinsync]

I almost never reply to replies on something that I wrote in a public forum, because I stand by what I wrote as a complete statement and don't feel the need to defend it further. In this particular case, because the whole topic is about "argument", I found it funny enough to break my own rule.

For what it's worth, I did read your post twice before I replied, just to see if I didn't get it on the first pass. What I took from it, and maybe I'm thick as molasses, was that humans defacto love to argue due to biological imperative, we stratify social value based on the success of arguments, and ultimately promote argument as a contact sport that you can dominate in for personal gain and personal validation. Dominate instead of mediate, which I've found through life experience to come most often from people who are deeply insecure with themselves.

When I came back to the thread, I noticed that the submission title had been updated to Most arguments are about ego, not ideas and saw your replies to my post + siblings, and felt like that new title encapsulated your responses perfectly. You and I simply disagree on the purpose and value of argument.

Persuasive people rarely argue. Persuasive people do not need to be unequivocally right. The most persuasive people do get what they want in the end, but you often don't even realize you've been persuaded.

Argumentative people leverage power if they have it, and data, and sometimes "win", but rarely succeed in persuasion.

And that's just my opinion! Feel free to disagree, I've no interest in an argument LOL

[jknoepfler]

Ease off the adderall bud.

There's a lot of sloppy thinking in that post, starting with the pseudo-scientific framing in terms of evolutionary psychology... which is ironic given then ScIeNcE-bro tone... couched against an artificial and incorrect taxonomy of reason into "philosophical, logical and scientific"... in reality those are intersecting at times, orthogonal at others, and the devil is generally in the details... but it certainly doesn't make sense to impose some kind of juvenile "batman vs superman" power scaling hierarchy on top of them...

The reduction of the results of an argument to a binary win/loss between two people is probably the most humorously absurd bit. There are many outcomes of an argument. Sometimes it pivots research in a fruitful direction. Sometimes it leads to compromise. Sometimes parties talk past one another. Sometimes it serves to create an artifact for later analysis/reflection. Sometimes it causes us to pause and re-evaluate before acting. Sometimes it plants a seed that bears fruit later. Sometimes it strengthens both parties by refining their respective views. Sometimes it wastes everyone's time and nothing valuable comes of it.

Pursuit of knowledge or aligning action to truth isn't an arm-wrestling contest with winner-takes-all outcomes. That's just a silly framing that doesn't reflect reality, it's the kind of way you see the world of you aren't actually part of knowledge production and consume "debates" as influencer-slop from Ben Shapiro types.

I argue with people all the time. At work, with friends. It's generally a form of productive commerce. I see things one way and have knowledge/strengths that I bring to bear through my perspective. Others have their own knowledge/strengths. Working together, we might build a scalable data system, prioritize a road map, design a better game, make food decisions at a restaurant, have an enlightening political conversation, improve a speedrun. Whatever, the ends are various. The means are often spirited debate, in which, generally, everybody wins. That's just kind of the first principal of macro economic theory, if you need a bro-system to cash things out into.

[threethirtytwo]

> Ease off the adderall bud.

This is kind of rude, implying I’m on drugs. It’s a cheap way to win an argument to sort of degrade your opponent before even talking.

I prefer to keep what’s underneath my post is as a discussion rather then play games or engage in arguments like this. So I’m sorry to say, everything you wrote underneath that initial paragraph you can just throw it in the trash because I’m not reading it. Apologies and thank you.

[bwfan123]

> The value is in the feeling of euphoria you get when dominating the other person by being unequivocally right

Frequently accompanied by a feeling of despair when you are dominated by another.

> The fact that this thread even exists speaks to the fact of the extremely high survival benefit this behavior confers onto a human.

Dialog brings clarity. Clarity helps build tools. Tools help survival. So, if there is anything to seek, try clarity of understanding - not being right, and being right stands in the way of understanding.

[threethirtytwo]

> Frequently accompanied by a feeling of despair when you are dominated by another.

Take a few minutes to read the entire post. I talk about this. In fact the entire point of my post is about this. If you missed the point I can only assume you decided to respond without reading everything.

> Dialog brings clarity. Clarity helps build tools. Tools help survival. So, if there is anything to seek, try clarity of understanding - not being right, and being right stands in the way of understanding.

The dialog itself is not what I’m referring to. I’m referring to empathetic relation. This “dialog” or thread exists because participants in this thread relate to all the emotions described in said topic. Please finish reading my post before responding.

[Lendal]

Yeah, I agree somewhat.

But I also got the feeling when reading this article that this guy loves motte-and-bailey. People don't intentionally set out to do motte-and-bailey arguments, but they often do it by accident. When people realize that they're arguing the losing side but can't admit it, they subtly shift their argument, and shift, and shift again until they're out of the bailey and inside the unassailable motte. Now they're the "winner" of the argument and can maintain their 100% argument success rate. Nice, and since nobody's recording the conversation, nobody can prove that they changed their argument in order to get on the winning side.

Motte-and-bailey is a common strategy for people who think they've won every argument they've ever been in. Nobody is so logically perfect that they actually win every argument without resorting to some kind of fallacy. I can't prove it. I just speak from experience. When I first learned about motte-and-bailey, I realized I had used it myself without realizing it. It's a natural tendency because it's so easy to do without really thinking.

Once we've learned all the fallacies and recognize them in ourselves, we finally realize that arguing is stupid and stop doing it so much. :)

[cogman10]

Now listen, I think you are dead wrong about this.

:)

It's a healthy attitude I believe. I think a little argument is fine, but there does need to be a time when you learn to stop. A lot of people want to get the last word in and I'm at the point where I just let that happen generally (though I do often want that last word myself :) )

What I've found is that when an argument feels like it's running in a circle, that's the time to bow out. You don't need to say anything or point anything out, just stop responding. The person with the last word doesn't automatically "win" and you certainly aren't always the one to "win". Winning doesn't really matter, the argument and the persuasion of the readers of the comment chain is what matters more.

But also real life isn't the internet and how you write shouldn't mirror how you talk. I have loads of family members I disagree with, and we do argue about hot button issues. But everyone approaches it with a "we love each other" and we listen and respond to what's being said. In fact, I generally make it a point in conversation to find common ground and agree with the person I'm talking to. Unlike an internet comment train where I know I'm probably going to disappear from memory, with real relationships I know I'll see my family again, a lot.

[21asdffdsa12]

At a reply depth of 4, the parent can never have the last laugh.. unless he replies to himself.

[Tangurena2]

Or, if that reply link/button doesn't show up, click on the timestamp of the comment you wish to rebut/remark/comment, then you will see a comment box with button.

[KaoruAoiShiho]

I think the parent's point is that if you are genuinely open to losing, the arguments can be productive because you can learn something instead... So stopping arguments is just another way of closing yourself off.

[bcjdjsndon]

> even if you are correct 100% of the time

Probably a sign of something larger if you think this, which OP apparently does.

If he knew so much, he wouldn't be an engineer complaining about how everyone's stupider than him

[Aerroon]

There's (probably) a correlation between things you know well and things you're willing to argue about.

Care about thing -> learn more about it

Care about thing -> argue about it

[throw0101a]

> They are saying to look past the fact that you might be right and consider that it’s not worth the effort anyway.

Sometimes it's worth considering what the effort is on. Another assumption is that you should effort is in convincing someone rather than understanding them: play dumb on the topic, and perhaps ask the other person questions to see why they think the thing(s) they do.

Knowing other people's cognitive blindspots may help you avoid them yourself. Perhaps make the effort on understanding.

[notnaut]

Language is a flawed vessel for conveying truth and the more people accept that they will never truly (like at a deep, fundamental level - not just truth-like via utility) be understood or understand, the more humility they might approach difficult discussions with, potentially facilitating the cooperation and coordination that language can be great for, rather than the dharma-combat people’s egos have them fighting every time they perceive a verbal slight or challenge.

[bryanrasmussen]

The misanthropic lover of chaos in me hears you trying to be a better person and wants to shout "no you're wrong, this is what he really means!"

https://medium.com/luminasticity/the-comic-misanthrope-in-a-...

But I guess I should try to be a better person too, ugh.

on edit: I put in the link because while off subject does sum up the misanthropic personality pretty well, and their impulses.

[stronglikedan]

> Now, I will attempt to put down my phone and not respond to any replies I get to the contrary.

I know you were joking, but you should try it sometimes. It's very cathartic to get things out of your system and then ignore any replies. It's my default mode.

[projektfu]

I often write a comment in a thread here and, satisfied I got it out of my head, hit the back button without hitting reply. I know, you might look at my comment history and say I don't do that enough, but imagine how bad it would be if I always replied!

[the_af]

I've done this, and even more: very often lately I've written a response on HN, let it sit for a few minutes, then delete it.

Not because I think I'm right (I think I'm aware of my flaws), but because I realize I don't feel like arguing about it, maybe my reply is closer to a belief of mine I've no wish to defend, and I suspect any snarky replies might incite a bad back-and-forth that never ends well online, bet it HN or elsewhere. So having gotten the reply out of my system, I delete it before anyone has a chance to reply.

Somehow my brain gets tricked into thinking I've replied, and allows me to drop the whole conversation in peace. It's a neat trick.

[saalweachter]

Also, even if you can't resist looking, not replying to every single person arguing against your position is a powerful tool on the internet.

If you're right, or at least, not making a complete ass of yourself, chances are someone else is going to come along and argue back for you. And besides the benefit that someone else will likely explain your position in a slightly different way, and the multiple POVs might combine more effectively, having a half dozen people explain to someone why they're wrong is a lot more convincing to random bystanders than two morons replying "nuh-uh" to each other a few dozen times.

And if no one jumps in to defend you, it's a pretty good signal to step back and re-read everything and have a good think before you have another go at it, at least to make sure you have something to add beyond what you have already said, even if you think you're still right.

[Forgeties79]

I generally agree with the sentiment but the one element I haven’t been able to quite square with it all is how internet debates are about the other people reading. So when someone says something wildly inaccurate/messed up about a topic, say DEI or something, when nobody pushes back and/or they don’t have their comment sufficiently downvoted (if possible) there is an implied “they are right.” Believe it or not a lot of people reading forums are still forming opinions!

To use a charged example but maybe less controversial than DEI on HN, let’s say it’s some ridiculous claim about vaccines (“they cause autism.”) The reason harmful ideas like that spread is because people throw them out online and other people online read them/hear them. I have a hard time believing that loud, public pushback isn’t important. If it’s not, then making those loud, public claims initially wouldn’t be so effective. Grifters making money off scaring people away from life saving vaccines and towards their snake oil supplements wouldn’t be successful if these platforms didn’t convince people. But I also acknowledge that it’s not necessarily my place and it’s not good for my mental health to participate.

So I don’t really know what the answer is. But it just doesn’t feel right to let some of that stuff just sit out in public unchallenged. I know a lot of what I think comes from being “a child of the Internet.” There’s no doubt my personal experience on the Internet was fundamental to my more progressive values I now hold. So again, I have no clue what the answer is here or whose responsibility it is.

[JumpCrisscross]

> fighting every battle is toxic to yourself and everyone around you

Fighting every battle is toxic. But calling something out doesn’t need to be a fight. I’m still halfway convinced a lot of Silicon Valley’s success derived from having lots of folks on the spectrum who wouldn’t bat an eye at calling out the CEO for making a mistake. (And said CEO, and everyone around them, having to get accustomed to that.)

[throw4847285]

I agree. Despite ending on a note of self-improvement, I wasn't really convinced that the author has any self-awareness to speak of. For example:

> When you argue with someone, you think you’re debating an idea. Often you’re not. You’re challenging their sense of self.

Oh, they're going to acknowledge that there are emotional reasons for their addiction to arguing.

> So I’ve drawn a line. I only discuss pros and cons with smart people

Oh, never mind.

[JKCalhoun]

Especially in software.

Approach A: implementation is hands-down the fastest.

Approach B: implementation is written so clearly and concisely that it's essentially self-documenting.

Approach C: a lot of attention paid to future proofing the code, parameter checking, sanity checking…

Which of the above was the most "logical" approach that the recipient was just not understanding?

(EDIT: Approach D: adheres closely to coding patterns in the rest of the framework.

I could probably come up with others…)

[p-e-w]

Debating is always primarily a game of power and only secondarily about truth or correctness. If it were about truth alone, the person who is right could be content with being right and not caring what others believe, just like they don’t care about 99.9999% of beliefs held by others either.

But it’s not about truth, it’s about imposing your beliefs on others. And while rational arguments are a socially blessed method for doing so, they don’t change the underlying motivation.

[Erem]

This is true for a very narrow definition of debate though. At work, choosing to debate can make the difference between a software design that solves the problem vs one that doesn't. Deploying code that causes an incident vs lands safely.

In broader life, public debate can reveal new arguments to seeking minds, help influence and educate people other than the debaters. It can even grow the debaters themselves if they approach with the right humility.

That said, many do approach debate in the way you describe. For those of us trying to avoid futile debate in favor of productive debate, the best choice is to detect these bad faith actors, acknowledge the bad faith publicly, and pull away

[goatlover]

> If it were about truth alone, the person who is right could be content with being right and not caring what others believe, just like they don’t care about 99.9999% of beliefs held by others either.

Disagree, if you care about truth, you're not going to just let people spread any opinion as if it were fact. It has societal consequences. That way lies the dark ages, witch hunts, wrong people getting into power. Of course one needs to be judicious in which battles to fight.

[throw4847285]

Ok, I definitely don't agree with this. It's so reductive as to be absurd. It almost reads as rooted in personal resentment.

[roenxi]

> If it were about truth alone, the person who is right could be content with being right...

So... how would someone know if they're right? For starters, if we're going to be serious there are a lot of matters where there isn't even such a thing as "right" because the question is how to decide what to optimise for. But more importantly, if you rely on the inside of your own head to try and arrive at the truth the most likely outcome is slop. One of the best parts of being argumentative is finding out what the holes in a view are really quickly.

There seem to be views in the comments and original article that arguments are to be won rather than undertaken and reviewed. They're a man-vs-self story, not man-vs-man one.

[swiftcoder]

> The author assumes they’re always right

If the author didn't think they were right, they likely wouldn't be arguing in the first place

It's a phase a lot of us go through. Young, hot-headed engineer, sure of how the tech (and the world) should work. Eventually you get tired of arguing, even (maybe especially) if you are usually right.

[shellkr]

Yes, my thought exactly.. In my experience it is always how you behave when arguing. If you "blame" the other will become defensive and nothing is accomplished. If you generalize and and talk in a helpful supportive way they will see their fault themselves and correct the fault. I usually get most on my side. We openly discuss and I genuinely look for faults in my own arguments too.

[bcjdjsndon]

> They never mention they could’ve been wrong.

I noticed that as well. He's oblivious to why he enjoys correcting people in the first place, the emotion that compels him to do it.

The black and white, right or wrong thinking is also a fallacy.

It also reeks of an engineer with no real appreciation of how to run a business, who's never had to fire someone, or make tough financial decisions

[giancarlostoro]

One thing I genuinely try to do is fully grasp the other persons points, and eventually I back away from an argument because some people will not change their minds, but I do try to have a take away. I also admit if I'm wrong, I hate when people don't do this just to spite you during an argument. I don't care about being proven wrong, especially if we're discussing tech, please show me why I'm wrong, otherwise, if you're wrong, don't take it personal.

[erikerikson]

This. The problem is that the author may have been right, every time, in the narrow context of consideration they were arguing from and about. But often the problems being solved are multi-dimensional and on some other level.

One could get closer to your wonderful suggestion with the far more indulgent "Maybe I'm right but not yet thinking about a contextual factor or value that might be important. What could possibly be important enough that they don't care about my correctness?"

[the_af]

> The problem is that the author may have been right

Even worse, it's very likely the author wasn't even right most of the time. They claim a frequent occurrence is that "the room" turns against them. Now, their rationalization is that they are ego-driven, yadda yadda, no other possibility of why "the room" is often against their position. If they were rational as they claim to be, maybe they could show some insight or introspection into the possibility they are wrong about some or all of the details, at least some of the time.

But no, their conclusion is that humans are ego-driven and it's best to disengage and only debate with truly smart people.

This reminds me of the joke about the guy who's driving and hears a warning on the radio: "beware of a madman driving the wrong way on Av XYZ", and he replies "ONE madman!? There are HUNDREDS of them!"

[erikerikson]

I see your cynicism and it could be correct, I'm not sure. I also could see it being as described but irrelevant in the manager's mind who knows about the pending sale that will put off the pending funding cliff and company collapse. I could also see that the person is, as admitted, technically correct but being such a jerk that no one is interested in letting them have increased influence. So many other possibilities.

Regardless, this story about the situation, especial if true, seems less likely to support them in seeing a richer tapestry of considerations and perspectives.

[ta2112]

Also most things worth arguing over fall somewhere in the middle, and won’t have an absolute right answer. It sounds like the author has learned something important though.

[rob74]

I'm 52, and over my lifetime I felt that there is actually an ever-increasing number of things that used to have an absolute right (scientifically proven) answer that become controversial. Climate change. Vaccines. Whether the earth is round - that kind of stuff. And, while I agree with the author's approach to let people learn from the consequences of their mistakes, what if the consequences of their mistakes (or the mistakes of the people they elect) affect all of us?

[gedy]

> Whether the earth is round

I honestly think a lot of the flat earther types in particular are basically trolls and/or enjoy being stubborn/argue about common knowledge, for no other reason because they can.

[someonebaggy]

I think it used to be like that but then a lot of people were actually convinced, or people who already actually believed it were attracted to the parody argument.

[paulryanrogers]

The flat earther I knew was sincere. He had fallen down a YouTube rabbit hole after decades of religious indoctrination had dulled his critical thinking skills.

Another religious friend became a 9/11 truther and Elon-stan (post cave diver).

For a time, I honestly believed the Earth may be only 6K years old because of the magic sky being and similar indoctrination.

[sejje]

I don't think that was really the author's approach--to let them learn from their own mistakes.

It was to quit wasting his time trying to correct their mistakes when they weren't ready to accept criticism.

Do you think you've changed many votes with your corrections? Even in arguments you won?

[kelseydh]

I used to work in politics, where sadly, the goal is to change people's opinions. At this level I did succeed in changing many opinions.

The most effective way to change an individual's opinion is to calmly provide facts to them without commentary or judgement. No insults, no judgement, no snark. Just calmly engage with their points and empathise with them. Most opinions are formed without knowing all the facts. Presenting facts without attacking their ego is the best path for changing an opinion.

This works best on unfamiliar topics people don't yet have strong feelings about. With opinion formation, the side to set the first emotional frame has the advantage. This is why in a referendum campaign it's so critical your message reaches voters before the other side can define the ballot question.

Other things I learned

- Good marketers in politics understand psychology. Repeat exposure better encodes a message into memory. For political ads this means repeating the same key phrases/words over and over again, to a degree you and I would find weird, to ensure you encode them into the viewer's memory. With enough repeat exposure, people feel like the ideas are their own.

- Never repeat your opponent's framing of a lie. To debunk a lie: use a "truth" sandwich. State your truth first -- first frame gets the advantage. Next describe the lie in less incendiary words, debunk it, then repeat your frame on the issue repeatedly.

- Politicians start every day with coordinated key talking points for media interviews because message repetition = encoding.

- Referendum ads are particularly crazy because they have no candidate reputation to protect. They do not need to be reasonable or respectable. A referendum ad's sole purpose is to persuade with the most emotionally resonant messages it can to encode key messages/frames of thinking. Being controversial just helps to create more exposure and people seeing your message. If everybody in the media is "debating" the merits of your message frame you are winning. People vote on the issue, not on the campaign team. E.g. If an ad says X will lead to extremist neo-nazi soldiers goose-stepping the streets, people will scoff at the hyperbole while it still subconsciously encodes into them that maybe I don't want something that risks instability.

- Politics is tribal and people follow the support signals sent by elites on their favoured side. Powerful elites speaking out in favour or against something/someone greatly changes its support among coalitions.

[jack_h]

> ... there is actually an ever-increasing number of things that used to have an absolute right (scientifically proven) answer that become controversial. Climate change. Vaccines. Whether the earth is round - that kind of stuff.

I think there are multiple things here that need to be disentangled. The first is that just because science "proves" something that doesn't mean the political, civil, or economic path is nearly as clear cut. While there certainly are people who just deny these things outright there's also the camp that accepts the scientific result but disputes how to deal with it as a society.

Second I've seen an alarming rise in what I would characterize as scientism, a belief structure around science itself where the "acolytes" of science do not understand the science themselves, but use it to reinforce their own worldview in the same way that deniers (heretics really) use other sources to reinforce their worldview. I have seen this play out within my own social circle as people will defer to experts as if they are a clerical class with divine authority to determine ultimate truth. To give an example in a much less controversial arena, how often have you witnessed people adopting fad diets because the "science" shows X is good even though the actual backing papers, that no adopter has read, are much more murky at best? This is an understandable consequence of having a limited lifespan where not everyone can know everything therefore heuristics must be used to comprehend the world, but the flexible heuristic which can lead to a change of opinion can be swapped out for a rigid belief that permits no change of opinion unfortunately.

Last I think this ultimately stems from what F.A. Hayek called constructivist rationalism[1], the idea that we can rationally construct our own social order. I share your own concern about mistakes that affect all of us specifically regarding philosophies that adopt constructivist rationalism such as the family of collectivist ideologies (socialism and the like) which are currently on the rise. My conclusion is that civilizations will evolve according to the culmination of all individual actors' actions and I personally have a limited role to play, although I am a classical liberal. Your last question unfortunately can lead some to conclude that a much more dictatorial society is necessary to produce a result that may itself not be possible and instead lead to an even worse result than the alternative.

[1] I highly recommend The Fatal Conceit by Hayek if you want to challenge assumptions your own worldview likely rests on without even knowing it.

[projektfu]

It's like that political cartoon. "What if climate change is false and we've made the world a better place for no reason?"

[jack_h]

Perhaps you could expand upon the parallels you’re seeing as it seems like you’ve fundamentally misunderstood my post.

[yodsanklai]

I noticed that with some people (and possibly most people), it's not even a matter of who's wrong or right, simply asking to justify or explain their claims may be perceived as an attack and enough to trigger an argument.

[palmotea]

> simply asking to justify or explain their claims may be perceived as an attack

I think that's because that often is a prelude to an attack.

I know someone who mainly asks for explanations or justifications when they're getting angry about something (and it's obvious). There's high chance the next thing that will happen is some kind of outburst (or quiet seething resentment). With them, the question "why did you do X?" almost never has any element of curiosity to it.

[staticman2]

On the other hand on this web site at least I think people ask questions passive aggressively at times.

Instead of honestly saying "I think you are wrong because..." they passive aggressively pretends they are "just asking questions."

Of course on non controversial topics a question is likely to just be a question.

[yodsanklai]

There are certainly lines you don't want to cross if you want to avoid conflicts, and there are ways to ask questions nicely. Maybe it's a professional bias, but when you work in research or engineering, I think it's pretty normal to ask questions or push back on strong claims without proofs, without necessarily sounding like a jerk.

I think I managed to upset people on several occasions as I was just genuinely trying to understand their opinion on some topics.

[mrguyorama]

Or people who pick a nit and then when it turns out the nit they picked wasn't even a nit, they double down and pick an even smaller it and split ever smaller hairs because they just cannot function if they don't "Win" every discussion

It's insane how reluctant some people are just to say "Oh maybe I was wrong or misunderstood"

[21asdffdsa12]

The problem is conflict avoidance behavior. We are hardwired to prevent conflict with the in-group (family/clan) to prevent loss of life due to strife - at the same time that does not hold up for the out-group.

[tedggh]

This could work with someone you don’t know well and should be the default approach. But you also need to trust your instinct and know when debating it’s not worth pursuing. It could be a coworker you have known for years who has certain toxic attitude. Humans are complex beings, we don’t know what’s going on with other people’s lives and minds. It takes years of dedicated study and experience to attempt to understand other people’s issues. You are not going to suddenly become a psychologist or behavioral therapist by just listening and kindly discussing. Some of these attitudes have an underlying problem that has nothing to do with work, it could be upbringing or mental health, or a combination. It just happens that Software Engineers may be more likely to suffer from these problems than people in other professions, just by the nature of it.

[qsera]

Isn't that what they mean by "changing yourself"?

[jasonlotito]

It is exactly that. You aren't crazy to question this.

[gchamonlive]

There's no mention of anything slightly anecdotal so we could produce our own opinions, so we have to take everything at face value. But even then, if if the author we're completely right technically, he is completely wrong and still is, because it's much more important for the author to change minds than it is to stick with his duty. It's just someone unaware of their own ego thinking there is no ego just because he feels like he is right all the time.

[kelseydh]

I "argue" constantly with my coworkers: they are savage in PR reviews identifying mistakes/improvements, and I give it back the same.

It's collegial, not hostile or insulting. Yet it's arguing nonetheless. We are exchanging ideas to create better software. Using steelmans and devil's advocate to evaluate new ideas / approaches.

Ego-less arguing is easier with engineering work because people are not emotionally invested in code the way they are on a political issue.

[lelandfe]

When you say you "give it back the same," are you saying you also are savage in reviewing their PRs, or that you are savage when replying negatively to their feedback?

If just the former, I strongly disagree that the two of you are arguing.

[kelseydh]

Mostly the former, but occasionally it goes back and forth for awhile as alignment need ironing out. That's the other thing about engineering arguments: both people are aligned in seeing an end result. People in online arguments don't have mutual alignment for a good outcome so they go nowhere.

[lazystar]

ironically, you wont get a reply from the author...

[toofy]

and honestly, i think we need more of this online. we shouldn’t feel this incessant need to constantly chirp back at someone if we think they’re wrong.

i’d personally like to see us get to a place where we say more often “huh. i disagree with that person and that’s ok” and move on with our day.

i do find it worrying how we get … twitchy … if we can’t respond to literally everything.

[thrw045]

You should read the whole thing. At the end he switches the argument on to himself and says that one should always ask questions, put the ego away and try to get better. He already made the point you made.

[b112]

And yet, a statement is a position, and this blog is stating his case, which is an argument for truth.

So he's still arguing, yet not listening, as it's all one sided now. This isn't actually that unusual, books, newspapers, and more often do one way communication.

But as soon as you state a position, you're arguing it.

[dahart]

> as soon as you state a position, you’re arguing it.

That’s true, but is that the meaning of argue that the author was referring to? Do you see a difference between arguing for something (making a case) and arguing with someone (contradicting them and saying they’re wrong)?

[eduction]

By your logic no one should ever talk in meetings or write blog posts or comments (like yours) - stating any case about anything constitutes "not listening." Bollocks. A good listener spends a lot of time listening, but can spend some time talking.

[toofy]

sometimes a statement is just a statement. not everyone is taking a “position”.

sometimes a conversation is just a conversation and not a debate.

[b112]

Everything you speak, utter, or do is an output your self-centric view of the world. By uttering anything, you are describing yourself in relation to the world.

Your very existence is an argument against chaos. Your very individuality is an argument against other individualities.

By simply existing, you argue your conscious view of the world.

Even silence in response to a comment, statement, or idea espoused around you is in itself an argument.

Waking up in the morning is an argument.

These are all arguments, in that you believe these are the right things to do. You are taking a position merely by moving your arm because you believe that is the thing that you should do.

Every conscious thought you have is an argument, that said thought is correct.

Even your assertion that someone is not arguing, is an argument.

Not arguing is an argument, for it is a position against arguing the point.

The universe is defined by order. Order is defined by conscious determination. Conscious determination is an argument for something being correct.

Our very existence, spewing from the quantum foam, is the result of us having a conscious and argumentative determination that we exist. Cease to argue, and you may merely dissipate into individual atoms!

To exist? Is to argue.

[gafferongames]

This is why we can't have good things :)

[fridder]

I think you are spot on. Also if you are actively listening you may learn that the fault is in how you are communicating your ideas instead of the ideas themselves being flawed

[jklinger410]

I can't control other people. I believe in extreme accountability. If my arguments are not working on someone, then I need to make different arguments.

[rib3ye]

His point is, it didn't matter if he was wrong or right about the topic because he admitted he was wrong about the reason: his ego.

[preisschild]

Or maybe they are rational and just let go of their mistakes once they have seen sufficient data to prove them otherwise?

[eduction]

>They never mention they could’ve been wrong

As thrw045 has pointed out, they do precisely this toward the end of the post.

[ellyagg]

> I could well be wrong about this :)

Exactly. You assume and imply for most of your comment that the OP is wrong about his premise.

But people aren’t equally wrong about things. Some people are more right more often. So how should your POV change if you accept his premise that he’s usually right in these situations? Then could you make a fair reading of his post?

[rolandog]

Perhaps the point isn't about arguing about something trivial that impacts no one, but about when one is arguing against dangerous ideologies for which the objectives transform things into zero-sum games; e.g. arguing against fascism (because power will be stripped against the many, and put in the hands of a few authoritarians), or against anti-feminism. The world is filled with people that have taken the bait ("pilled") and that don't realize they're (or are actively) enabling this concentration of power while they're focused on hating a small demographic (LGBTQ, feminists, black people, immigrants).

I don't think we've solved the problem of what to do with evil people that are too smart to pretend they have been rehabilitated. So, an amicable chat with them won't really win them over.

[bdangubic]

I may be wrong if I am stating an opinion and I cannot be wrong if I stating a fact. Our society, since it got consumed by “social” media, has lost ability to accept facts, everyone doing their own “research” and all that…

[auggierose]

Every "fact" you state really includes the opinion that the "fact" is indeed a fact.

Is climate change man-made?

[khalic]

Are you arguing against the existence of an objective reality? Seems a little extreme. There are countless facts, indisputably so. Gravity, death, the fact you wrote me an answer, the fact I'm writing you an answer. These aren't opinions

[jnd-cz]

Objective reality is complex and hard to explain or list all the facts in a single argument session. People are also good at cherry picking the facts they agree with and disregarding other related facts. As others wrote, there are also bunch of trade offs, not many subjects have clear and low amount of facts that everyone can agree upon. People tend to argue most about society rather than theoretical math or physics. Like you can argue about what is the perfect form of government but you also have to account for the people who are part of the governing and being governed, they are not ideal actors, so the practical reality isn't straightforward.

Coming back, what is objective reality, anyway? Each person perceives the reality differently. And if you go down to measure single basic part of the reality you will find out the act of measurement already changes the outcome. Or we can agree about the final, ideal state but not how to get there.

[dahart]

> There are countless facts, indisputably so.

True, but isn’t the problem here that even though there are many facts, no one of us knows most of those facts with absolute certainty, and we learned them from other people, therefore we primarily hold opinions about facts as opposed to know them first hand.

My experience of gravity correlates with the explanation I was given in physics class, but I haven’t myself proven anything about it, and I just trust other people’s stories when they tell me gravity affects light or time.

I think about this often when contemplating arguments; there’s almost nothing I personally know first hand. Like you I believe in facts, but I recognize that I’m not the source of most facts, and I’m relaying a story someone else told me. I’m guessing this is one of the reasons facts can be so easily argued, because there are gaps between facts being established and facts being told and shared. Like, it’s pretty common for scientific research results to be oversimplified and told & shared in a way that doesn’t capture the entire truth, right?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Are you arguing against the existence of an objective reality?

I’d argue against absolute certainty in any knowledge. That isn’t a statement about reality, just our measure of it.

[prmph]

I can be absolutely certain of my perception and recollection of what my consciousness is experiencing and has experienced.

Note that the truth of this statement does not depend on any certainty about external reality, nor does it depend on certainty that what I perceive or remember is happening or actually happened.

[JumpCrisscross]

> nor does it depend certainty that what I perceive or remember is what is

It absolutely assumes a unitary conscious experience versus what increasingly seems to be the case, a bunch of narratives our brains thread into a cohesive story ex post facto.

Put another way, there very well may be hard limits to how much a human-like consciousness can understand itself.

[dctoedt]

> I can be absolutely certain of my perception and recollection of what my consciousness is experiencing and has experienced.

There's abundant evidence to the contrary — at least as far as your recollection of what your consciousness previously experienced.

(IOW: Memory is extremely fallible.)

[bdangubic]

There is of course absolute certainty and there is a lot of it, absolute and unquestionable

[JumpCrisscross]

About abstract notions, maybe. About anything physical or emergent from physical processes, I don’t think so.

[auggierose]

> Are you arguing against the existence of an objective reality? Seems a little extreme.

No, I am not arguing against the existence of an objective reality. I argue against the capability of most people to accurately assess what that objective reality is. You for example apparently cannot even assess the meaning of my clear and simple sentence, why would I trust you to be able to assess any more complex situation?

[khalic]

Nobody’s asking you to trust peoples’ assessments, this is why reproduction exists in science.

Your sentence was very much ambiguous, you should think before writing

[auggierose]

There is nothing ambiguous about my sentence. Once you learnt thinking, read it again.

[croes]

There people that gravity doesn’t exist and it’s some kind of buoyancy. Death as the final end of existence? There are many religions that claim that isn’t true. Nowadays it’s even harder who wrote what but next week if I don’t find that text again, can I be sure it was written or could be just in a dream?

[khalic]

1. yes they are objectively wrong, a persons belief does not need to be tied to a fact

2. death as in death of the body, it's very much inescapable

3. the last part is just uncertainty, hardly an argument against objective reality

[jnd-cz]

Ad 2, How do you define it, precisely? Today we have the technology to keep the body alive even if it would stop functioning long time ago on it's own. Is the person still alive? Is the body still alive? Some bodies need permanent technical devices to be able to live, yet they can reach high age. Is it cheating or not?

[lowbuzz]

Let me be annoying and tell you about your second point as I don't really understand your first one. Your perspective is that of a living looking at a dead body. Death itself though isn't an experience of life, Meaning that we can't really talk about what happens after we die. We just don't know and we probably can't know what or how death is. So any answer goes, really. I mean you are right uncertainty doesn't exclude objective reality, but my question in an argument would be: What do you even mean by objective reality?

[conductr]

> Is climate change man-made?

When having the climate change conversation with deniers I roll it back to; is the climate warming? They almost always[0] agree it is and we agree it’s evidenced. So now we’ve agreed on a fact and have common ground to advance the conversation. Then I can make my case that if we know the climate is warming then we have a responsibility/necessity to reduce our contribution to it and should likely invest in finding ways to reverse it. Because even if we are not the cause, we have a lot at stake.

[0] in rare case they can’t agree to this, I usually ask them if they’ve encountered a source for that and then ultimately implore them to at least read something on the topic before forming their opinion about it, there’s plenty of data available I won’t push them down any path that may be seen untrustworthy or politically misaligned with their beliefs, I just leave it alone there because it’s usually quite obvious they’re parroting the talking points of some pundit without doing any research themselves. As the article mentioned, this argument would just become an ego war more than anything.

[genewitch]

i disagree that it' warming, so where do you start with me? I'm not being coy, i 100% believe that all of the warming detected is strictly down to poor placement of sensors and incorrect assumptions thereof in the resultant data. So what we will end up arguing about, if we get past that particularity of my thoughts, is about models. And i hate arguing about models.

edit: i think probably the cities are getting "warmer" but that's not climate change that's city change. In that cities are growing, generally, with more stuff paved over. We need to plant more trees and have less concrete/asphalt in cities if we want to reverse this trend. also less people, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

[conductr]

Thought I addressed this in my original comment but to make it clear, this is typically where I choose to withdraw from any debate. This is where I would typically take the advice in the article.

I don’t want to convince anyone the data is there and believable or even that even lacking any structured data or scientific method it just seems like a sensible explanation of actual witnessed events. How does polar and glacier ice disappear in such a short time if the climate is not warming? Why are there so many habitats exhibiting “heat stress” that is seen impacting plants/animals/etc? All far away from the concrete heat sinks you mention.

[genewitch]

> Why are there so many habitats exhibiting “heat stress” that is seen impacting plants/animals/etc? All far away from the concrete heat sinks you mention.

offhand, if you're looking for heat stress because your funding was granted so you can find heat stress, you're probably going to find heat stress.

My issue is with models. there are models that disagree with the models that the ICCC is using, and models that disagree with both. Are we exiting a global mini ice age? are we about to enter another more severe ice age? the past 50-60 years has been tedious to try and track which way the climate is going.

but i'm sure this time we're all correct!

[goatlover]

Do you doubt that greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere have gone up since humans started burning fossil fuels, and do you doubt the physics of how they trap solar radiation? Do you doubt that climate scientists know how to put sensors in the oceans, in rural areas and released in weather balloons along with satellites to measure temperatures across the planet year by year? Or that they can extract ice cores to measure trapped atmospheric gas from thousands of years ago? That sort of thing.

[genewitch]

> in rural areas

how many? how many with long records?

hint:

it's less than 10

hint 2:

there's less than 3 in the northern hemisphere in rural areas.

[goatlover]

Yes it's a scientific fact humans have been causing the current warming by burning fossil fuels since the industrial revoluton.

You can make skeptical arguments against this is you're willing to dismiss empirical data and methodology behind scientific facts. The people who do this aren't consistent and cherry pick which empirical data, models and methodologies to dismiss. It tends to align with some belief challenged by the science. Or their financial interests.

It's much harder to be a consistent skeptic, since empirical data is verifiable, and the scientific method works for all sorts of fields and technologies. But it could all be dream of a mental patient in a simulation god programmed while making a bet with the devil.

[miyoji]

It's too early in the morning for this much sophistry.

[bdangubic]

I made $xxx,xxx.00 last year, that is a fact, I can definitively prove it via deposits to my bank account. It is a fact.

Climate change being man-made or not definitely does not fall into “this is a fact”

[goatlover]

So it's only a fact if you can verify it, and not if the scientific community can? And you're consistent about this via all scientific findings you haven't verified like the balance in your bank account? You reject as fact any astronomical data or microscopic results you haven't seen with your own eyes? Or any satellite data you haven't analyzed yourself?

[bdangubic]

Not sure where you are getting this at and what does "scientific community" have to do with anything? There are things that are play and simply facts that are absolute and unquestionable. And then there are things that are open for debate because they are not facts. "Climate change is man-made" is so broad that a 10-year old can easily debate both sides of that argument.

[goatlover]

Climate change being man made is a scientific fact as in humans are driving the majority of warming since the industrial revolution by pumping increasing amounts of green house gases in the atmosphere. This warming is simple physics even if the effect on weather is complex. Venus is an example of run-way greenhouse warming.

A ten year old can debate what they want, opinions don't change scientific facts (burning fossil fuels puts greenhouse gases in the air which trap heat from the sun). Consensus meaning most most climatologists agree on what the data and models are telling them.

There are not two sides to the basic facts of the matter (complexities around which models are more accurate or what society should do is a separate matter).

[folkrav]

Do I need to hold the opinion that water is wet for it to be factual?

To answer your question, if by climate change you refer to the dramatic post-industrialisation acceleration of warming and climate disturbances, the correct answer is "the overwhelming majority of existing evidence points to yes".

[what]

Is water wet though? It’s the substance that makes other things wet, but is it wet itself?

[folkrav]

If we go full on aykchyually on this, technically no, sure. I however assume most English speakers would be familiar with the idiom lol

[godshatter]

I'd love to know what one of those conversations looked like.

"Using this construct in this part of the code increases it's performance by half of a percent. Obviously, this should be changed."

"That code isn't in a hot loop and doing it that way makes it much less clear about what's going on there."

(rolling their eyes) "Using this construct..."

[coldtea]

>They never mention they could’ve been wrong. The author assumes they’re always right

Everybody assumes they're right when they argue, else they wouldn't be arguing their points.

So for the point this post makes whether they're right or wrong during those times, doesn't matter. Even if they 100% were (by some freak natural phenomenon) always right, the points they make about not arguing would still be valid.