> But you can win any argument by first granting that it must be true, which is what you do in your second paragraph.
If we disagree on that point, then we will obviously reach different conclusions and there is no point in arguing with each other. That is why I stated it as an assumption.
> I also wonder if there's a universal central reason behind why it is important to understand someone else's argument if their conclusion differs than yours.
In fact, if you can't argue for their side as well as they can, you haven't really understood it, so you shouldn't argue.
> What do people gain by arguing over these? Genuinely confused
If you assume some arguments (eventually, in some way) lead to people altering their opinions closer to the truth, then people gain more accurate views of the world. This also reduces the spread of misinformation (when the people who have corrected their views no longer spread it), thus having a compounding effect on more people getting closer to the truth.
Or if you assume people never change their opinions as the result of arguments, then I suppose people gain nothing by arguing.
> Doesn't matter. The arguing would happen (or not happen) anyway, because it, too, would be absolute and predetermined.
Of course! And this would make it a pointless and futile debate then. You might even be right, but you should not win a debate with "it's inevitable and predetermined".
> The central fact about child rearing by my parents was the equal intellectual status of everyone in the family. My sister and I did not get a vote on the family budget; we were not the ones who had earned the money. But in any disagreement the question was always who had good arguments, not who was older.
That belief implies that:
1) All relevant knowledge about something can be expressed as arguments.
2) There is a canonical way to interpret arguments
Most of the important things worth arguing about cannot be expressed a pure logical syllogisms. Assumptions and relative weights are very subjective.
There is also the existence of sophistry, where logic is used not to enlighten but to hide.
For example, I may have some disagreements with Anders Hejlsberg about language design. Even if I present a better argument about something, you would probably be better off taking into consideration Anders' view over mine.
> Arguments virtually never convince anyone, so this is all a moot point.
I would tend to agree with you that when two people are arguing, there is very little chance that one will convince the other. However, one of the things I like to do on HN is read arguments between two informed people on a topic in which I myself an uninformed and unopinionated. So for my personal benefit I would urge the people of HN to keep arguing. And to cite your sources.
>>My experience suggests that if you do that, the other party will never stop disagreeing with you no matter how far up the chain you go.
Absolutely true.
There was a MOOC about argumenting at coursera I think. The proffessor had the same viewpoint. One of the lessons was that you have to start at a common reference point and argument from there. If you and the other person have no common reference points, you will never resolve your difference of opinion ever.
> Because one does not reach the same conclusion as you does not make their conclusion automatically irrational.
I didn't, initially, fault their conclusion. However, I noted that their conclusions consistently and increasingly favoured their immediate self-interest, regardless of what else was happening.
Another thing I noticed, in the same people and the same situations, is a difficulty noticing any nuance regarding the issue. When I presented them with something, instead of addressing it, they would react to the threat they perceive.
To me, this also suggests that they are arguing from their thesis, rather than the situation.
> I think the onus is on you to disprove them, not just to merely question their veracity.
This generally is not how reasoned debate occurs. The onus is on the person making an assertion to provide facts supporting it, not on everyone else to disprove an unsourced claim.
> Neither side on an internet debates actually owes you anything.
I disagree, the person trying to convince you of something always owes you an explanation.
Actual reading on something, while a good thing, never resolves an argument because you can't replace the person you are arguing with's premises with a generic premise from somewhere else and come to a reasonable conclusion.
> It's not that I actively want to 'prove someone wrong', but part of the way I learn is through argument; expressing my disagreement in the hope that the other person will prove me wrong and I might learn something.
If you don't put this into the preamble (e.g.: for the sake of the argument) of your opinion then there's no way other parties can infer that you are seeking more information through disagreement (or something along the lines of the Socratic methods).
But people aren't punching bags for you to use in order to get to know more. Most don't like being abused and misled regarding your real intentions.
I'd deal with it by just replacing the habit of being argumentative by the habit of closing the tab and get back later to it to see if you can still add something more valuable to the conversation than adding fuel to the fire.
> you might want to start with the assumption that motivated reasoning is in play. You can be well-educated, and still have a bias and be inclined to argue for your side to win.
yes, this is the human condition and applies equally to both sides of this debate.
If we disagree on that point, then we will obviously reach different conclusions and there is no point in arguing with each other. That is why I stated it as an assumption.
reply