Calling liars out, having proof, being on the side of the facts… None of that matters. You simply will not “win” in the court of public opinion with facts, reason, logic, or evidence, of any real kind. The crowd is 100% amygdala. There’s no higher reasoning EXECPT as a post facto response to the emotional reaction.
In short the crowd can only rationalize, it can not be rational. (Ironically my ability to prove that doesn’t mean anything to anyone.)
I don’t think there are any silent undecided third parties convinced by debate. First and second parties obviously never convince each other.
If debates had that level of impact global society itself would be a lot more rational and unified. Nuclear power and religion are my goto proofs here. But maybe they aren’t the best ones. Nuclear power’s argument is entirely fact based and yet for decades now we’ve let one bad film from the 70s decide US energy position on that front.
Actual professional nuclear physicists have failed for decades to convince Americans of the concrete facts. (I’m sure many people who might read this remain unconvinced for example.) Further, if debate actually swayed third parties with facts and logic religion would be unified or abandoned by now.
Assuming there is a factual objective metaphysical system to reality or the unified absence of one, debate based on those facts should have given a substantial advantage to the truth resulting in unity either under the true religion or the fact that there isn’t one. Clearly that didn’t happen. We still have thousands of religions plus atheism all perpetually bickering.
Also, these hypothetical undecided people could participate in debate, asking questions and the like, but I never see it. I never see people commenting and then adopting a position. I only ever see people seeking confirmation or defending a side.
Further, if undecided third parties were converted into decided first and second parties then they’d join in. But all you ever see in debates are people speaking like they already had a position. (This is a phd sociology opportunity, just find examples of people saying they are convinced, and then prove or disprove it as best you can. I predict now you’ll find none of them are new positions.) You never see droves of people join in with replies like so and so convinced me this is now my position.
Basically I’m saying the claim that there are convinced third parties is wishful thinking, which was the only room left for debate being a valid persuasive tactic. Hence, myth. Reminds me of the so called “silent majority.” Imaginary but (seemingly) plausible allies.
Debate in my opinion appears to be an article of faith and hope more than anything. Which is why the only substantive uses of debate in our society are law and politics, which are the secular faith equivalents on which our society is built.
Which brings up a disturbing corollary. We Americans literally can’t as a society admit that debate is impotent theater because democracy and the legal system are based on it. How do we choose policy or candidates without the function debate is presented as providing? How do we determine guilt and innocence without a jury trial system and impartial judges? What possible alternative is there to this lie?
Literally how do you even start to build a just society that is honest about debate being a myth?
I think the answer is clear. We can’t, and never have. Deep down we all know politics and justice are as broken in this regard as religion and energy policy. Politics is based on lies and spin, not facts and reason. Justice similarly is based on lies and spin, as an extension of politics, but additionally on arcane loopholes, virtue signaling, and proxy sadism. As well as simple greed.
Nationalism and war itself is also an example. It would appear that diplomacy can’t be won in the sense that checkers can. Because if rhetoric and debate could be mastered the nation with the best diplomats would have won the game long ago. Think about it, the best possible weapon logically should be masterful diplomacy. Which would be better militarily? Sending one diplomat and getting everything you want? Or trading half a battalion for everything you want? Just compare military spending. Why spend money on bombs to acquire square feet when you could spend it on diplomats to acquire square miles?
The obvious truth that “it doesn’t work that way” proves my point. Diplomacy is obviously not the weapon system you want to invest in if you intend to win. The reality is that diplomacy doesn’t do anything as advertised. Recent human history is defined by two co-occurring things: Peace, and stasis. Diplomacy where ascendant can prevent war (maybe?) but it doesn’t replace it because in short it’s just not effective. Because it’s based on debate, and debate is a myth.
Philosophically the threat is even larger. Think about conversation as a concept. What even is communication if debate is empty? Its certainly not what it appears to be. I mean my typing this is pointless if debate is empty. But what choice do I have? How do we even begin to design a philosophy that faces this fact?
And what about science? Planck famously lamented the impossibility of convincing even fellow world’s-best physicists with facts and reason. What does that say about our process for making decisions scientifically? How can we possibly achieve consensus if facts themselves have no persuasive power? It’s almost like the persuasion in this context is incidental, accidental, and unconscious.
Some solution speculation:
If diplomacy isn’t the alternative to war we imply it is verbally then we need to develop one asap. War is inherently fact based. The “debate” there is entirely physical. Reality’s physical logic is the truest impartial judge. The problem of war isn’t the concept, it’s the scale and cost. That’s all we need to constrain, otherwise the concept is clearly useful.
We need to transform war into something that serves us instead of something that feeds on us. Imagine if we could turn all that military spending into investment.
How about placing policy and concession bounties on a list of agreed upon scientific discoveries? Like a space program with national betting. First team to place a man on Mars gets some set of war spoils and policy decisions.
All we’d have to do is choose the combatants, the dispute, and the win criteria. Like the gold standard, we could link our economy of policy, to the gold of physical law. Just like war does, only with no collateral damage, and at extreme efficiency.
At any rate, I think I’ve shown that facts don’t matter pretty clearly. I wonder, did my facts and logic change your mind or do you still disagree? XD
See also: https://underlore.com/open-letter-to-all-who-are-rigged/
I wouldn’t have agreed with so much of this until Trump was elected. Now it has been proven all too true. It baffles me that he can have any supporters left, yet he does. Nice essay, terrible truth.
Indeed, trump is a solid proof. He is novel not because he is the first president to use emotional arguments primarily to win, but rather because he is the first to use them exclusively and in direct opposition to facts. He won because that’s how people actually operate as described above. He functionally recognized that facts don’t matter and focused exclusively on saying whatever the target audience wanted to hear.
While we can hope the importance of facts will have sunk in to his base by now, the reality is that they simply have a new set of pleasing lies they are listening for.
I’m quick to add they aren’t idiot demons, they are just more humans, and accordingly will still respond to fictional arguments so long as they are emotionally resonant enough.
This is happening on the left too, with Yang being the one pure-fact based candidate opposing various degrees fiction mixed with facts. Biden being in the lead imo because he is the most distant from factual.
Thank you for your comment, and I agree, it’s a terrible truth. I’m not entirely sure what to do with it other than tell it.
Sadly, I think if we tried the type of approach where “first team to put a man on Mars” wins such-and-such desirable thing, the participating teams (and/or other parties with a stake in who wins) would attack and spy on each other to try to slow down one team’s progress and/or steal secrets of a team’s success. So…war.
Well we could manage it like sports, cheaters get disqualified, and sanctioned by all other participants.
The fact that so many believe that Trump’s relationship with the truth was or is in any way remotely novel among politicians just further cements the reality that facts don’t matter. They don’t matter so much that even the author of this article is subject to the same error, likely due to political alignment, despite being aware of said error.
Imagine thinking Trump was just another politician. Catching people in lies was assumed to matter before Trump. He lied so transparently and so often that he taught the entire political class in America that zero precaution needed to be taken. People are still in that mindset. There are entire channels that do nothing but “call out” lies AS IF IT STILL MATTERS. When ever since trump it objectively did not. Basically Trump taught politicians what religious leader have always known: Facts don’t matter.
I think you’ve missed a thing… or possibly two.
Who, or what, creates the opinion of the crowd? You have persuasively explained that the opinion of the crowd is not based on facts or truth, but it does not form out of a vacuum either. I believe you are correct about the opinions, and reasoning ability, of crowds.
Moreover, the notion that “facts don’t matter” is clearly not applicable if facts are presented BEFORE the media attempts to impose an opinion on you. When that happens, you change the channel or switch off the set, or close that browser window.
“Assuming there is a factual objective metaphysical system to reality or the unified absence of one, debate based on those facts… ”
You have omitted the uncomfortable reality that we don’t HAVE any of those facts to argue, so instead we argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We argue about what the facts are, and there is no resolution, just religiously based warfare. The facts matter, and the fact that we don’t have them matters most.
Most conversation has little or nothing to do with “debate”. Communication from the model of reality that is inside my head and guiding me, to the model of reality that is inside your head, guiding you, is a matter of emotional content and of reality itself. The agreed-on reality is related to where the water-hole is and whether there is a tiger in the bushes. That is where “facts matter”. The nature of the people who are not present (and thus guilty of everything imaginable) is emotional in nature and helps the tribe bond together.
——
“Basically I’m saying the claim that there are convinced third parties is wishful thinking” – you mean unconvinced, right? Just a typo
Interesting points. Opinions come from childhood and PR. New facts are always parsed by those lights. It’s why there are so many NPCs. Their OS so to speak is not compatible with billionaire unfriendly truth. Granted you can give new data to bare metal systems but there aren’t any. Every child has a fortress of orthodoxy around them. And the minute you start telling them anything their owners dislike you run real social risk at minimum. Yes ultimately data is all speculative, I could be a brain in a jar, but this writing is not at the navel gazing context. I’m speaking assuming reality is more or less what it looks like. The meat hook realities. Philosophy won’t stop a brick flying at your head. That level. Sure the brick is mostly empty space but it won’t feel that way if it hits. And no, I meant convinced. The idea that your words are reaching and converting people you can’t see. Imaginary lurkers flipping sides.