Reason in the Age of Disinformation (Updated and Expanded)
Why internet arguments fail, and how you can fix yours
To humanity’s sorrow and consternation, an essential distinction has been lost:
Winning a debate isn’t the same as winning an argument.
By the end of this post, you’ll be doing both with unparalleled ease, striding across the internet with joy and confidence, and spreading goodwill in the unlikeliest of places.
We begin with two definitions:
Debate is bloodsport.
You enter a debate with two options: either destroy your opponent in spectacular fashion, or be destroyed by him.
Whether the arena is set before dispassionate judges or cheering partisan throngs, it makes no difference, the mindset remains the same.
Argument is different.
You win arguments by persuading your opponents (or they you, or both).
The end goal of any argument is full-throated mutual agreement, a genuine no-holds-barred endorsement of the same positions by all involved, by virtue of having reasoned each other to the same logical conclusions.
Ideally, this goal is also in service to an ongoing search for truth.
In simplest terms,
Debate is win-lose
Argument is win-win
Making this distinction leads directly to humanity’s most pressing problem:
In an online world, debate crowds out argument.
This is a civilization-killing problem, so we’d better fix it fast.
If we are to repair argument’s weakness against debate, we must first dissect why argument is weak.
So we go back to the source.
A classically constructed rational argument consists of just three parts:
Evidence (facts; “given these data points”)
Arguments (logic; “and this chain of reasoning”)
Conclusions (results; “it follows that…”)
Within the rules of Classical Rationality, then,
IF you accept my Evidence,
AND IF you accept my Arguments,
THEN you must ALSO accept my Conclusions.
The same rules hold true for debate.
Good so far? Good.
A classically constructed rational argument is also vulnerable to three lines of attack. But (plot twist) they aren’t the same three lines.
Two lines of attack are familiar:
You can attack my Evidence (“your facts are wrong”);
You can attack my Arguments (“your logic/reasoning is fallacious”)
But the third is strangely slippery:
You can attack my Standard of Evidence (“your facts are right, but you’ve cherry-picked them to support your position”).
Still good? Maybe not?
Let’s dissect.
A Standard of Evidence (also known as a Methodology) is a bit like scaffolding.
Built around an argument-to-be, it
Limits the argument’s scope
Supports its construction
Enables its future inspection
By design (and by definition!), a Standard of Evidence is both selective and predetermined. Once selected, it stays set. It cannot be altered without robbing Classical Rationality of its persuasive power.
Changing it mid-project starts an avalanche that
alters the Evidence,
unsettles the Arguments,
and invalidates the Conclusions.
So choosing a standard of evidence is not a trivial problem.
Scientific papers implicitly recognize the Standard of Evidence problem’s importance by placing it FIRST, before the other sections:
FIRST, describe the Methodology (or Experimental Design)
NEXT, summarize the Evidence (or Data Collected)
ONLY THEN, make the Arguments (or Discussion)
FINALLY, draw the Conclusions (or Recommendations)
But there is a dodge going on here! The dodge is at once simple, effective, and fatally short-sighted:
Scientific arguments are persuasive to other scientists, because an implicit methodological consensus already exists within the scientific community.
By and large, the scientific community has already agreed which methodological approaches should be allowed. Science’s scaffolding is pre-set. If you can meet the established scientific standard, then your argument has a fair chance at persuading scientific minds.
BUT:
Standard of Evidence attacks are strangely slippery because they are launched from OUTSIDE the community consensus.
Substitute “Republicans,” “Democrats,” or “News Media” for our scientists in the preceding paragraph, and the problem becomes clear: ingroup persuasion isn’t convincing to outsiders who don’t share the same community standards.
You’ve crafted the single most compelling argument the world has ever seen! And against a savvy debater, it won’t even matter. They’ll just smile, and say
“Yes, but you’ve cherry-picked the facts to support your position.”
And that’s the problem.
Scaffolding doesn’t match?
Your audience tunes out.
Your brilliant argument?
ZERO persuasive power.
No consensus?
No argument.
And no persuasion.
Sorry.
In the online world, debate crowds out argument.
Why does the internet accelerate the problem to civilization-killing levels?
Because debate is bloodsport, not collaboration.
Because debaters are online in vast numbers.
Because debaters can (and will) use Standard of Evidence attacks to go after your unguarded scaffolding, instead of your brilliant argument.
Because the internet allows debaters to stack online Standard of Evidence attacks to infinity.
The result is a devastating triple whammy:
an end to effective argument
a pause on persuasion
a persistent rising shriek of ever emptier, nastier debate
The method behind the online madness is obvious enough. The machinery is right there for anyone to see.
Each time you choose to defend against a Standard of Evidence attack, it
costs you added time and energy
fails to advance your original argument
expands the cognitive perimeter you must defend
drives you to build ever more elaborate scaffolding
which creates a larger, more tempting target
which invites further swarming attacks…
…which is precisely what online Standard of Evidence attacks are designed to do…
…without limit.
Socratic Inquiry? Debater’s Doom-Loop? Trolling? Whataboutism? Call it whatever you like, doesn’t matter, the point stands.
In an online world, it all boils down to one last cruel twist of the knife.
Debate-style attacks stack effortlessly to infinity
Argument-style defenses don’t
There you have it.
The dissection is complete.
SO:
If you truly want to WIN-WIN on the internet, to add your own heroic efforts to the unfolding battle for the future of civilization, you need to rediscover a simple, long-forgotten skill:
You need to rediscover how to convert online debates into arguments.
More specifically?
You need a tried-and-true system for converting online debaters into arguers.
So ditch your debating skills! Chuck your logic over the fence, sit awhile, and ponder what you and I have just rediscovered together:
Consensus is what enables rational persuasion. NOT the other way around.
Classical Rationality fails without consensus. So do arguments.
This limit is baked into Classical Rationality. It is also baked into the process of argument itself.
Classical Rationality cannot CREATE consensus. That has never been within its persuasive power.
Instead, Classical Rationality persuades as it always has done: by mapping the unsuspected extent of an ALREADY EXISTING consensus, as indicated by a mutually accepted standard of evidence.
And the rules of Classical Rationality don’t tell you how to find one, do they?
We’ll tackle that giant, glaring problem next.