Fuck you, my mom died from improper arguing!

[El Twid]

Wait i think i got it. So what you do is refute the central point but then argue for a more extreme version of it at the same time so that they think theyre disagreeing with you because youre the one thats wrong. But whats actually happened is that youve convinced them of your view point in the best case scenario but cut off their route for taking there original premise further. Is that what it is?

[LMNO, PhD (life continues)]

The example given in LW is here: http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Wielenberg-Dawkins-Gambit-Humes-Aroma-and-Gods-Simplicity.pdf

Basically, the author says that Dawkins' argument is a poor derivative of Hume, and he goes on to improve Dawkins' central point.  He then proceeds to tear that improved argument apart.


Or, to take a more relevant example, there have been a few time in AI where someone will make a stupid claim about international politics, and Cain will first correct their stupidity regarding the facts on the ground; and after that he will proceed to thrash the premise of their entire argument.

[El Twid]

Thx- will look at tonight

[LMNO, PhD (life continues)]

Another example:

Say you're arguing with a guy who says that Paul Ryan is smart because his budget plan clearly shows it would reduce the deficit.

So, in DH7, you would first point out that Ryan's plan is build on two magic asterixes which assert, rather than prove, that revenues will be increased over time, giving no means of why or how that would happen.  You then correct his plan to show an actual working budget based upon austerity and supply side economics.  You then destroy that improved budget by showing that austerity measures in a liquidity trap are retarded, using Neo-Keynesian economic theory.

[V3X]

Another example:

Say you're arguing with a guy who says that Paul Ryan is smart because his budget plan clearly shows it would reduce the deficit.

So, in DH7, you would first point out that Ryan's plan is build on two magic asterixes which assert, rather than prove, that revenues will be increased over time, giving no means of why or how that would happen.  You then correct his plan to show an actual working budget based upon austerity and supply side economics.  You then destroy that improved budget by showing that austerity measures in a liquidity trap are retarded, using Neo-Keynesian economic theory.

Except the Teabilly would be drunk, asleep, or hitting you with his club before you got halfway there.

[Mangrove]

DH7: Improve the Argument, then Refute Its Central Point. Black Belt Bayesian writes: "If you’re interested in being on the right side of disputes, you will refute your opponents' arguments. But if you're interested in producing truth, you will fix your opponents' arguments for them. To win, you must fight not only the creature you encounter; you [also] must fight the most horrible thing that can be constructed from its corpse."

I'm in love with the bolded sentence 

[El Twid]

I gotcha now lmno. But i think that vex is probably right too. Logic doesnt seem to work on some people.

[Cain]

I gotcha now lmno. But i think that vex is probably right too. Logic doesnt seem to work on some people.

Then why are you wasting your time arguing with them?

[El Twid]

Im not usually. But anyway i think i get it. It goes. That doesnt work because a b and c. You could do it this way but that wouldnt work either because d e and f.

[V3X]

I gotcha now lmno. But i think that vex is probably right too. Logic doesnt seem to work on some people.

Then why are you wasting your time arguing with them?

There are too many of them not to. While some people can be reasonable and logical, it turns out that a surprisingly few people who are interested in actual facts and evidence end up agreeing with the Teabillies in the first place. And, since it is (at least in LMNOs example) the Teabilly Mythos that is being addressed, there is a low probability of encountering someone who believes what the Teabillies say, but is not immune to logic.

[Cain]

Its funny, because I don't recall saying "never try to argue with anyone who self-identifies with a group with a large number of people who are immune to rational argument".

I swear I didn't.  Am I just imaginging things?  Oh god, this better not be another fucking stupid dream about the internet.

[V3X]

Its funny, because I don't recall saying "never try to argue with anyone who self-identifies with a group with a large number of people who are immune to rational argument".

I swear I didn't.  Am I just imaginging things?  Oh god, this better not be another fucking stupid dream about the internet.

No you didn't say that, and I didn't say you said that. I do not disagree with you. What I mean is that sooner or later you're going to hit a situation where very large, very important events hinge on beliefs that are only held by people who shun rational argument. It's invaluable to know how to carry out a proper argument, and how to avoid the pitfalls that lead to the kinds of "arguments" that have been going around here lately.

However, about half of the humans out there (on a good day) -- a percentage very much large enough to do important things like elect governments -- do not subscribe to the idea of logical argument, and are effectively immune from reason. However disproven they may be by logic and reason, they are not dissuaded by them.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Its funny, because I don't recall saying "never try to argue with anyone who self-identifies with a group with a large number of people who are immune to rational argument".

I swear I didn't.  Am I just imaginging things?  Oh god, this better not be another fucking stupid dream about the internet.

No you didn't say that, and I didn't say you said that. I do not disagree with you. What I mean is that sooner or later you're going to hit a situation where very large, very important events hinge on beliefs that are only held by people who shun rational argument. It's invaluable to know how to carry out a proper argument, and how to avoid the pitfalls that lead to the kinds of "arguments" that have been going around here lately.

However, about half of the humans out there (on a good day) -- a percentage very much large enough to do important things like elect governments -- do not subscribe to the idea of logical argument, and are effectively immune from reason. However disproven they may be by logic and reason, they are not dissuaded by them.

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

It might not be on posters but we get it drummed into us from birth, regardless. Makes us immune to logic. It has to, otherwise we'd be pawns up for grabs. Some of us shake the programming somehow and, in doing so, immediately become wilcards and potential enemies of the state. The ones who don't are largely immune to our influence, unless we find an effective method of hacking their conditioning. Appeals to logic are pointless, their logic is broken, short circuited, warped.

Thus the game is set.

[El Twid]

For example you may be able to convince someone who believes that ufos are spaceships that while that maybe the case its not proven and while its ok to believe thats a possibilty to not declare it to be the truth and keep an open but skeptical mind, once they get into the whole reptilian shapeshifter territory its a safe bet youre bot going to make any headway. When confronted with a teabagger youll be able to figure out fairly quickly whether or not theyll actually listen to your points or if theyre completely closed off to new info.

[El Twid]

With the conspiracy theorist trying to change their minds will get you labeled as a disinfo agent an illuminatus or a shapeshifting reptile. With the teabagger who cant be convinced theyll just brush you off as a member of the muslim kgb. Bad programming has its own antivirus software. Or rather antiantivirus software. Once you program yourself with that mindset the program resists any challenges to it. Pents dead on about the hacking bit.