Thread: Argumentation Is Pointless

I agree completely. I would just add that the best ideas have objective experience argue for them.

Originally Posted by Ezpata

Discuss.

It's unfortunate that think of argument the same way that 4 year olds do.

I view an argument as any attempt to convince someone of your opinion while they hold a differing one.

The issue is, while you may think you're doing it to convince someone of something, you're actually doing it to win and assert your dominance over someone.

Example A:

"I think you're wrong!"
"Yeah? Well I think you're wrong, dummy!"
etc.

This is not an argument.


Example B:

"I think you're wrong, here's why you should see things my way."
"Perhaps, but here's why YOU'RE wrong, and why you should see things MY way."
etc.

This is an argument, provided said reasons make sense, and are logical.

Most of the time people have opinions they're not completely sure about and should logically be more agnostic, but they take a stance for the sake of fighting. It usually is very pointless.

Yes, Galileo's argument with the Vatican over the heliocentric model was pointless. It was never about Earth's position in the solar system, Galileo just wanted to prove that he had a bigger penis than the Pope.

Try harder please.

This is the most transparently and hilariously self-defeating argument ever. It's hard to even know how one would begin to take this seriously. Are we even meant to?

Originally Posted by Ezpata

"I think you're wrong, here's why you should see things my way."
"Perhaps, but here's why YOU'RE wrong, and why you should see things MY way."
etc.

This is an argument, provided said reasons make sense, and are logical.

So you do understand what an argument is.

Well what the heck

All intellectual growth is self-emergent, people cannot simply give up their cognitive matrix of reality and adapt someone else's because they couldn't figure out how to trump that person in a debate. They can merely learn and build upon their cognitive matrix in order to improve it. The greatest tool to learn is humility, which enables one to have a more open mind. The greatest obstacle to growth is conviction and presumption, assuming you are right and the other is wrong and that it's merely your job to show the other person that they're wrong.

Evolution has two sides, competition and cooperation. Competition necessitates cooperation as the small and simple must become large and complex in order to gain the advantage. While argument purely for the sake of dominance, or as Mark put it, the 4 year old's version of argument (though I find it strange how many 4 year olds troll these forums), gives the initial competitive edge, evolving your level of communication beyond mere domination enables greater cooperation, greater growth and complexity and overall a greater competitive edge.

But there's still game theory to keep in mind. There is no point in communicating cooperatively with those of unshakable conviction, as you'll find yourself simply agreeing with everything they say whether or not it computes with your own worldview and your cognitive matrix cannot improve. If someone cannot take an open minded stance with you, there's no point in taking an open minded stance with them. There is nothing to gain from admitting you're wrong to someone who has failed to convince you of anything.

Spoiler for more in depth:

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Yes, Galileo's argument with the Vatican over the heliocentric model was pointless. It was never about Earth's position in the solar system, Galileo just wanted to prove that he had a bigger penis than the Pope.

Try harder please.

Originally Posted by DuB

This is the most transparently and hilariously self-defeating argument ever. It's hard to even know how one would begin to take this seriously. Are we even meant to?

It was not Galileo trying to show dominance, it was the Church. I don't know what was going through Galileo's mind, but I know that I, myself, am far less likely to care whether or not I am right when I have observation on my side. It is when I take the observation and try to reach a conclusion that I am more likely to fight for my opinion. For instance in the Tickle your Amygdala thread, I had no reason to fight for the conclusions made by Neil Slade or others on Amygdala clicking, I had nothing invested in it, they weren't my claims. But I was a beneficiary of the experiment and felt compelled to explain my observation, so long as people would listen. However, in my Extra Dimensions thread I was taking an observation from an ineffable realm and trying to explain it without knowing if there even was proper vocabulary to explain it with and before even hearing about the book Flatland which I could have borrowed arguments from to make my claim much easier to explain. I became more invested in the argument because people were caught up attacking my words or clinging to conviction for the sake of it, but my words were just whatever I could come up with to explain my argument which was based on an observation. The observation that I encountered was objective (in a nonpartisan sense, as in anyone could have the same observation) but I had to come up with my own conclusions as to what I experienced and put them into words that ultimately fell short. Because I knew the heart of the argument was still valid, whether or not my conclusions were, it was mostly just a struggle to find the right words to explain it, but the reaction I met was, as Ezpata has said, an attempt to gain dominance, just as the reactions I quoted from this thread are.

While Dub's argument lacks substance and is clearly nothing more than attempt to show dominance with pure fallacy, Stormcrow's attempt at dominance is only revealed by his afterthought, "Try harder please," but his claim itself still has value.

As Mark noted when trying to compare your perspective on argument to a 4 year olds, there is a distinction, which is also hinted at by the quote in the OP about admitting your wrong for the sake of sustaining a marriage.

1. Very dubious assertion.
2. Demonstrably false consequence of dubious assertion.

Logical conclusion: get this thread the fuck out of my science forum.

Originally Posted by Xei

1. Very dubious assertion.
2. Demonstrably false consequence of dubious assertion.

Logical conclusion: get this thread the fuck out of my science forum.

I believe it's time for another episode of "Using Xei to argue with Xei."

The OP claims that argumentation is pointless. He supports this claim through... argumentation.

If that is not transparently self-defeating then I don't know what is. The hilarity of it is perhaps more subjective.

Originally Posted by Xei

1. Very dubious assertion.
2. Demonstrably false consequence of dubious assertion.

Logical conclusion: get this thread the fuck out of my science forum.

You're dubious.

There's never really a need to argue. You can just simply state your view. Listen to other people's views and either pass them by or use them as tools for exploring the world of ideas and building better views. No argumentation is necessary, it only serves as, as the OP states, primitive fighting through words.

Humans don't argue to learn from each other, we argue to win and show dominance towards other humans.

how many arguments have you won using the very techniques of an opponent that previously bested you in debate? no one wins, ever

There is definitely a part of people that does not like to be wrong, and will keep trying to argue even when their position doesn't make sense. People usually accept things that reinforce their beliefs and fight things that go against their beliefs.

The problem with the main point, is you are assuming all argumentation is the same and for the same reason. There is no reason to believe that at all.

Originally Posted by Ezpata

1. Humans don't argue to learn from each other, we argue to win and show dominance towards other humans.

2. Anything that is done purely to win/show dominance is pointless.

Your problem is with point 1. Not all people do this. [Name redacted by fascist moderators] generally does for instance but I generally don't. When I'm arguing with someone, it's because I believe that one of us is wrong and for the sake of both of us, I'd like to get to the bottom of it. This is highly useful when both people are taking the same attitude. When somebody is arguing to be right rather than to discover right, then it is very annoying. That's why I don't even bother to read [Name redacted by fascist moderators]'s posts any more.

Originally Posted by Ezpata

Here's my viewpoint:

1. Humans don't argue to learn from each other, we argue to win and show dominance towards other humans.

Possibly true but learning is at least occasionally a painful byproduct.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Your problem is with point 1. Not all people do this. [Name redacted by fascist moderators] generally does for instance but I generally don't. When I'm arguing with someone, it's because I believe that one of us is wrong and for the sake of both of us, I'd like to get to the bottom of it. This is highly useful when both people are taking the same attitude. When somebody is arguing to be right rather than to discover right, then it is very annoying. That's why I don't even bother to read [Name redacted by fascist moderators]'s posts any more.

It's funny because if you had read my post in this thread you'd understand exactly what's wrong with that attitude.

There is nothing to gain from admitting you're wrong to someone who has failed to convince you of anything.

Originally Posted by Ezpata

Example A:

"I think you're wrong!"
"Yeah? Well I think you're wrong, dummy!"
etc.

This is not an argument.

Oh yes it is!

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Oh yes it is!

oh no it's not, dummy!

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Oh yes it is!

Oh no it isn't XP

With regards to the Op, even if we accept the dubious premises, it does not deductively follow that “Argumentation is pointless”. Furthermore the Op clearly states in the premises that the point of argumentation is to display dominance. The argument refuted itself before it even took off the ground.

Arguments arise when two rational players assert contradictory views. The reason why logic is so cut and dry and black and white (in some cases) is to weed out ambiguity. It is either raining outside (R) or it is not raining outside (¬R). If it is the case that it is raining then the negation of R is false. It simply cannot be the case that it is raining and simultaneously not raining. There is no room for relativism or ambiguity of any kind. Like it or not, some things are demonstratively true and others are false. The point of argumentation is not just to be right but to demonstratively show how and why, R for example, is the true. Argumentation is not pointless; it is the vehicle of intellectual progress. If your feelings get hurt in the process then you are not doing it right.

Omnis Dei mentioned that arguments can be competitive or cooperative. Ponder this example. Two physicists are arguing over which mathematical model best fits the observational data. There is more than just rational self-interest at play here. The discourse concerning which model best fits reality is not primarily motivated out of self-interest but to collectively come to a better understanding of reality. In this case argument doesn’t always imply a winner and loser. If both physicist set out to further our understanding of reality then by finding the right model (regardless of whose it was), they both win.

Since OD brought up Game Theory this type of game would be called a Non-Zero Sum game because one player is not benefitting from the others loss, they both “win” because finding the best fitting model was their collective intentions in the first place.

I find the notion described in the Op to be naively pernicious. It states that the only mechanism which advances ideas is the sheer amount of people who hold the said idea to be valid. But science is not a democracy (sorry for that cliché). The heliocentric model is valid neither by virtue of collective opinion nor deductive reasoning; it is valid because it corresponds to empirical observations.

And Omnis Dei, if I cant make condescending attempts at dry humor (like "Please try harder") then what am I even doing here?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

It's funny because if you had read my post in this thread you'd understand exactly what's wrong with that attitude.

Dammit. I saw my name in your post and accidentally read it. Then I went back to read the post you're mentioning. I read the first sentence and the one that you quoted.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

All intellectual growth is self-emergent, people cannot simply give up their cognitive matrix of reality and adapt someone else's because they couldn't figure out how to trump that person in a debate.

This is already showing that you argue precisely like OP is describing. Argument is not about "trumping" another person in a debate, it's about clearly showing why the ideas being advanced do not fit reality. It's ok though. The vast majority of people argue like you do.

Here's the sentence you quoted:

There is nothing to gain from admitting you're wrong to someone who has failed to convince you of anything.

There is nothing to gain from arguing with someone that has failed to demonstrate so much as a shred of intellectual honesty because you will always fail to convince them of anything.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

With regards to the Op, even if we accept the dubious premises, it does not deductively follow that “Argumentation is pointless”. Furthermore the Op clearly states in the premises that the point of argumentation is to display dominance. The argument refuted itself before it even took off the ground.

Arguments arise when two rational players assert contradictory views. The reason why logic is so cut and dry and black and white (in some cases) is to weed out ambiguity. It is either raining outside (R) or it is not raining outside (¬R). If it is the case that it is raining then the negation of R is false. It simply cannot be the case that it is raining and simultaneously not raining. There is no room for relativism or ambiguity of any kind. Like it or not, some things are demonstratively true and others are false. The point of argumentation is not just to be right but to demonstratively show how and why, R for example, is the true. Argumentation is not pointless; it is the vehicle of intellectual progress. If your feelings get hurt in the process then you are not doing it right.

Omnis Dei mentioned that arguments can be competitive or cooperative. Ponder this example. Two physicists are arguing over which mathematical model best fits the observational data. There is more than just rational self-interest at play here. The discourse concerning which model best fits reality is not primarily motivated out of self-interest but to collectively come to a better understanding of reality. In this case argument doesn’t always imply a winner and loser. If both physicist set out to further our understanding of reality then by finding the right model (regardless of whose it was), they both win.

Since OD brought up Game Theory this type of game would be called a Non-Zero Sum game because one player is not benefitting from the others loss, they both “win” because finding the best fitting model was their collective intentions in the first place.

I find the notion described in the Op to be naively pernicious. It states that the only mechanism which advances ideas is the sheer amount of people who hold the said idea to be valid. But science is not a democracy (sorry for that cliché). The heliocentric model is valid neither by virtue of collective opinion nor deductive reasoning; it is valid because it corresponds to empirical observations.

And Omnis Dei, if I cant make condescending attempts at dry humor (like "Please try harder") then what am I even doing here?

While you make a valid point, I can't help but furrow an eyebrow at condescending remarks in general. I don't understand why people cannot just win the game, they have to rub the losing team's face in the mud in the process. While I appreciate dry humor, I've found that most issues are a lot less demonstratively true or false than I once naively believed. I know you used rain just for the sake of an example, but surely you understand that mild precipitation could not be considered rain nor not rain. I find that people are typically overly presumptuous and eager to draw hard lines, ignoring the ambiguous nature of reality in favor of their cognitive matrix. While a matrix is a helpful guide to reality, a high level of disrespect emerges from confusing your cognitive matrix of reality for reality itself, and assumptions about the falseness of foreign worldviews and different methods of thinking becomes commonplace.

Truth be told I'm not sure much about life can be cleared of ambiguity except mathematics.

You're right that it's not a zero-sum game, and there's nothing to lose by comparing your viewpoint with another person's, but mutual respect is required in order to gain anything. Common ground must be found and terminology must be sufficiently resolved rather than utilized as a means to break down the other person's argument. Simply because someone doesn't explain things the way you expect them to, or they phrased their argument in a way you can find holes in, it doesn't mean you have the right to forego mutual respect. I see, too often, rather than attempt to resolve problems in terminology, these problems are used as a vehicle to attack the opponent. If you had proper respect for the OP's position, why would you feel the need to or even see the humor in being condescending?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

This is already showing that you argue precisely like OP is describing. Argument is not about "trumping" another person in a debate, it's about clearly showing why the ideas being advanced do not fit reality. It's ok though. The vast majority of people argue like you do.

Apparently you stopped there when you should have continued. I go on to explain how it is not beneficial to argue for the sake of trumping the other person.