Hacker News Reader

>Maybe the correct action is to see that how the Early Bronze Age worked has so little effect on your life, no testable hypothesis to confirm one way or the other, that it doesn't matter which one you believe, or if you believe both (even if they are contradictory, that's a thing humans can do).

This is a great point, and I'd suggest it is worth taking even further. Even for things that have moderate or substantial impact on your life, holding space for the possibility that multiple competing/overlapping explanations could be true can be an extremely valuable (if cognitively expensive) skill.

It also ignores the question of how the person even got their prior in the first place. Presumably they heard a convincing argument at one point and accepted that - but then later changed their standards to not accept convincing arguments. In fact, how do they even know "if I know that a false argument sounds just as convincing as a true argument, argument convincingness provides no evidence either way"? Presumably they were convinced of it at some point.

> Presumably they heard a convincing argument at one point and accepted that - but then later changed their standards to not accept convincing arguments

No, many people base their views on what their friends thinks, they never reasoned themselves into it.

It is rational to base your beliefs on your friends, and to keep those beliefs to ensure you can continue to fit in with your friends. That is less work and less risky than changing your mind, only few really go against the grain and try to think for themselves, it isn't helping them but some people has to do that for the benefit of our pack.

> That isn't making them look like an idiot, reducing them, or demolishing their position

I think the quote is in Scott's opponent's voice, not his own.

> Instead of doubling down on one, let go of all of them

Yes. We don't need better ways to form opinions - the world would be a better place if we all just had fewer opinions

I believe the parent comment is aware of your first point

> That isn't making them look like an idiot, reducing them, or demolishing their position.

I think he's saying that he can reduce his opponent to those words - i.e., the author's argument fits together, the opponent says "it's just wrong" and gets frustrated.

I agree that's what he's saying, and I'm saying that is not demolishing the opponent's position. Scott is going up to a castle, talking to the walls until he thinks they should collapse, then when they don't collapse he's declaring victory by "making the walls look idiotic" and telling people he "demolished the castle walls".

If you haven't actually convinced your opponent, and you haven't changed their mind, and you haven't understood their true objections, and you haven't presented a convincing enough case for your position for them (arguing in good faith) to accept, you haven't won, there's an underwater-iceburg chunk still missing.

Like, if I claim 2 is the largest possible number, and show you 1+1, and you say "1+1 is coherent and logical and fits together ... I can't place the flaw but something's not right and I still don't believe you", I can't go around reasonably telling people I demolished you with my proof that 2 is the biggest number and you look idiotic for not believing me.

The thing is, often people cannot be convinced of some statement, not because they are so convinced of their own stance, but because leaving their stance feels bad and might even question their own identity (what they stand for).

Only after all those years i came to that conclusion, after a lot of arguing and debating.

And that relates to what the article says, we just nod and still keep our position because the other's arguments feel concise at first sight but just feel weird. Any rebuttal attempt very often feels futile and useless.

> believe both (even if they are contradictory, that's a thing humans can do)

It really isn't, though.