Why Are There So Many Bad Arguments Everywhere?

[c.d.]

Sometimes when I am not thinking about women, beer or professional wrestling I ponder more philosophical questions. Lately this one has given me a lot of thought. Why do you see so many simply piss poor arguments on so many subjects? I am not talking about Casebook (but feel free to insert a Casebook joke). By bad, I mean easy to refute. The argument contains factual errors or the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Logical fallacies abound and some people are simply too lazy to do a simple Google search which would show them that their argument has been refuted countless times and why. Poor education, stupid people and the Dunning-Kruger effect also play a part. But I think the real reason is that the very vast majority of arguments are an attempt to prove a particular point and reflect the view of the one making them. In other words, they are not attempting to reach the truth but are merely attempting to validate the position from which they started. Does that sound about right or is there something else at play? This really does bother me and since I respect the opinions of my fellow posters (well, some of them anyway) I really would like to get your opinion on this.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

I suspect the problem reflects a number of different things. Logic, as in philosophy courses, is not taught regularly anymore. It used to be that most who went to university, at least, would take as part of their education a class in logic. Today, philosophy departments are closing and being lost as the focus is on more "applicable and relevant topics", failing to recognize the importance of teaching people how rational thought and reasoning works.

Also, there is what is known as confirmation bias, which you allude to. People have a tendency to seek information that confirms their current beliefs, and this results in a tendency to ignore information that goes against our beliefs. We'll write off such information as "anomalous", or "non-representative", or even argue that it's just wrong and fabricated.

As a result, through lack of training in how to construct a logical argument, combined with the tendency to seek out, or only hold as valid, information that already confirms our beliefs, when people try to "make a rational response" what they often end up doing is just as you suggest, they present something which is really just a "here's why I believe this", and not "this is the belief one comes to by following the evidence." It's really hard to get someone to recognize that no matter how strong a belief is, it can be false - we can believe things that are not true so just because we believe them doesn't constitute evidence. We have a right to our opinions, but that doesn't mean our opinion is therefore right.

I think there's been a blurring of the distinction between opinions and facts. My opinion might be that fried fish and potatoes taste better than green salad and fruit, but that doesn't mean it's a fact that it's better for me. I might believe that if you tell me the answer to a question I'm working on that I'll learn more because it's easier for me to get the answer, but that doesn't mean I really will learn more (doing my own research will not only provide me the answer but also improve my research skills, but it requires more effort on my own part). And, I might believe that latter statement, but that doesn't mean there isn't a point where getting some help isn't a good thing.

And that, I think, is a third problem. It seems to me that too many times people want things to be one or the other extreme, to boil things down to "one right answer", when most problems or topics tend to be a balance of many complicated interactions, resulting in the "answer" being some sort of blended view or middle ground. And if that is the case, that means one can find support for one's belief and we're back to confirmation bias tending to push things to an extreme again. Lack of training, through being taught how logical reasoning works, results in the same mistakes being made over and over again, withing even knowing or recognizing them as mistakes, making it hard to learn from them because the person erroneously thinks that to get another person to concede, no matter how that is achieved, is "winning the argument".

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

... Why do you see so many simply piss poor arguments on so many subjects?...

But I think the real reason is that the very vast majority of arguments are an attempt to prove a particular point and reflect the view of the one making them. In other words, they are not attempting to reach the truth but are merely attempting to validate the position from which they started.....

If I get your meaning, I think you're right in many respects.
Piss-poor arguments are often the result of the need to justify an opinion. This is because the opinion came first, not the result of analyzing any facts, that is where their problem lies. Then they come up with gobbledegook to try make the square peg fit the round hole.
Once someone comes at them talking about facts their justification takes on an air of desperation, not always making much sense.
Then again, some are just too lazy to do any worthwhile research, pushing an argument is all they want to do.

[rjpalmer]

Also, there is what is known as confirmation bias, which you allude to.

And it's only going to get worst, especially since more and more people get all of their news off the internet. Their browsing history is tracked by "cookies," etc., and pretty soon they are led like a donkey to what they want to hear. Even the search engines can be geared to your browsing history, so you and the bloke down the block might be searching for the exact same information, but will be fed two different series of "facts." And depending on what books you may or may not have purchased off amazon.com, your home page will start showing you the news stories that are in line with your political beliefs. The advertisements will even be geared to get the money from your pocket by playing up to your political 'profile.' Bought any organic fertilizer recently? Pretty soon "Green" stories will be showing up on your news feed. Bought a shotgun? Pro-NRA stories will show up instead. Whether Liberal, middle-of the road, Conservative, radical, or Fascist, the future will be one gigantic hive of infinite echo chambers, each person with their own endless feed-back loop, confirming their 'bias' in a hundred subtle ways. And study after study shows that young people are extremely poor at telling "fake" news from "real" news, so we're pretty much screwed unless we start paying attention.

[JeffHamm]

Yes, rjpalmer, it used to be that our confirmation bias would end up causing us to initiate the selection of biased material, like going to the shop and buying the newspaper which had views we already tend to agree with, etc. But, we could still see the other options and, if we wanted to, we could look at the alternatives. Now, rather than look for the information it comes to us with our biases already in play by algorithms designed to reward our biases. And with search engines also ranking or selecting results based upon our existing biases, even if one tries to find all the information, that which doesn't conform to our beliefs becomes harder to find, which reinforces our existing biases. A nasty circle.

[c.d.]

Thank you for your responses gentlemen. If you can't get good advice and good responses to life's questions from a website devoted to a serial killer where can you turn?

c.d.