It's generally easier and less time consuming to produce a bad argument than it is to produce a good argument to refute the bad argument. For the targets of the arguments, it often is harder and more time consuming to follow the good argument, too.
Get too many independent sources of bad arguments in your society, and there simply won't be time and resources to counter them.
Trying to scale effective debate is a hard problem. I've run across a few entities that are trying to make civil, open discourse more commonplace. Unfortunately I forget the name… Anyone got examples?
Yep, that's the main reason the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop works.
> Get too many independent sources of bad arguments in your society, and there simply won't be time and resources to counter them.
You can find time and resources to counter the most damaging bad arguments, though. Many bad arguments just do things like sell pills or supplements that don't actually do anything measurable that beats placebo; not really harmful per se, even if based on bullshit. See: "Dr." Oz.
im sorry but to me this seems counterintuitive. occams razor and all. do you have any supporting info for this? genuinely curious
Bad arguments are so prevalent because their staunchest peddlers aren't arguing from ignorance alone, but arguing from deep-seated convictions or selfish interests. That is, they violate the criteria of good faith and open mind.
Can their arguments be countered and argued against? Of course, most people would say so. But does that mean that they'll be defeated in the court of public opinion? Consider that society does not function as and is not based upon systems of rational deliberation. The intellectuals may not be convinced by bad ideas and arguments, but the public is, and the importance of the public here is shown in the fact that all the movements I've named also take advantage of rhetoric, not merely logical argumentation.
So the real question is: if open and fair scrutiny is a way to defeat a bad argument, what's the way to defeat the rhetoric used to prop up that bad argument? It's clear that one can have rhetoric with a bad argument too, isn't it?
The court system? The medical industry? Science? Technology? The financial system?
> if open and fair scrutiny is a way to defeat a bad argument, what's the way to defeat the rhetoric used to prop up that bad argument?
Well, that's a good question. Charisma and persuasiveness can be used by both good and not-so-good (if well-intending) actors. I think intellectuals might spot and discount the appeals to emotion, but non-intellectuals and those of weak critical thinking skill would not, and the latter do make up the majority of the population.
The thing is, public sentiment eventually does seem to drift closer to the truths the rationalists determined already; see for example marijuana acceptance, gayness acceptance, and (hopefully, maybe) human-caused climate change. Is it because of a slowly-encroaching realization that the rationalists were right? Or is it all down to the lucky benevolence of the "persuaders"? And if most people aren't swayed by logical reasoning, then how does ANY progress actually get made (where "progress" is measured as "closer to rational truths and goods"), except as an accidental beneficence of Those Who Persuade Us?
But it's not only about being able to deliver the right charisma; certain ideas are more attractive than others, and I think that many bad ideas are attractive because they appeal to biases that we already have, along with ideological factors. Most people, for instance, do not believe their belief in democratic systems or prevailing rationality to be deeply ideological.
There are two sides to using historical arguments here: firstly, they can obviously help make a case, but secondly there are reasons to believe that in today's society critical thinking skills are dulled through a variety of unintentional processes. I think the mistake in your post is assuming that gay acceptance, marijuana acceptance and human-caused climate change acceptance have come about from the triumph of reason over ignorance, but I'd say that a more plausible explanation is that they operate within the same framework which convinced people that gays shouldn't be accepted and that marijuana is the devil's lettuce.
Next, it is possible that misinformation reaches such a height that the mere "drift closer to truths" is not sufficient[0]; consider the rise to power of the Nazi party, which was so fast even in its day.
Finally, the establishment of truth in a democracy on a wide scale requires that people are able to use their own intellects to judge arguments sufficiently well enough to do so, but I think that's an assumption we take for granted:
"Now in recalling John Stuart Mill's passage, I drew attention to the premise hidden in this assumption: free and equal discussion can fulfill the function attributed to it only if it is rational expression and development of independent thinking, free from indoctrination, manipulation, extraneous authority. The notion of pluralism and countervailing powers is no substitute for this requirement. One might in theory construct a state in which a multitude of different pressures, interests, and authorities balance each other out and result in a truly general and rational interest. However, such a construction badly fits a society in which powers are and remain unequal and even increase their unequal weight when they run their own course."
[0] "The evaluation is ex post, and his list includes opposites (Savonarola too would have burned Fra Dolcino). Even the ex post evaluation is contestable as to its truth: history corrects the judgment--too late. The correction does not help the victims and does not absolve their executioners. However, the lesson is clear: intolerance has delayed progress and has prolonged the slaughter and torture of innocents for hundreds of years. Does this clinch the case for indiscriminate, 'pure' tolerance? Are there historical conditions in which such toleration impedes liberation and multiplies the victims who are sacrificed to the status quo?" (H. Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance (1965))
The paper talks a lot about what should and should not be allowed in an academic environment, and I think I agree with the bulk of it. Freedom of speech must be protected in such circles. But what you're talking about with public opinion—that is a hard problem that needs solving.
An educated populous able to apply critical thinking.
The ability to have the discourse should not be predicated upon the likelihood of winning the argument.
A thousand times, yes. I see this as the ultimate solution. Do you think there's anything that we can do now to improve the situation on education?
Take climate change. Is those who think we are currently in a run-away scenario friend or foe? It is very easy for people to define them as foe because their views and suggestions are different, and from there put them in the climate change skeptic side even if they share nothing in common with that sides view.
Without open and fair scrutiny you get the political situation of "you're either with us, or against us", and from a historical perspective that tend to do more harm than good regardless of what the movement stand for.
(one of my hot-takes is that Gore inadvertently precipitated this.)