![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
unspeakablehorrorSometimes an argument arguing vehemently for something actually makes me feel so negatively about the position it's arguing for that it's just as good if not better at convincing me not to support its conclusion than the best arguments against it. Sometimes arguing badly for something is the most compelling argument against it. I wish I didn't have to see these types of arguments, though, because they make me so angry. Would much rather just see arguments that I look at and can say 'sure that's a compelling argument for that position' and just have that convince me of something. Or at least have it be a sophisticated argument that nonetheless embeds a subtle error, so it seems clear to me why the mistake was made.
And the worst thing is, not only do I see other people do this all the time but I know I've done this, too. And I don't mean a 'oh, this person gave a bad argument so that convinces me there can be no good arguments' sort of thing. Obviously someone can argue badly for something that is still in fact a correct conclusion. If I argued that 2*2 = 4 because 2+2 = 4 and if a + b = c then a*b = c that would be false, but it wouldn't prove the original assertion of 2*2 = 4 false. No, I mean 'so if you can spot the logical or factual error in this argument, it actually turns into an extremely compelling argument, or even outright proof, for its antithesis'. Like arguing that there is no situation where a+b = c and a*b = c but then giving the example of where a and b are 2 and thus proving the premise incorrect by counterexample.
And in my experience, even someone being capable of regularly making complex, nuanced, correct arguments does not prevent them from making these types of arguments. It's kind of like knowing or even being good at calculus doesn't make someone incapable of simple addition errors.
And the worst thing is, not only do I see other people do this all the time but I know I've done this, too. And I don't mean a 'oh, this person gave a bad argument so that convinces me there can be no good arguments' sort of thing. Obviously someone can argue badly for something that is still in fact a correct conclusion. If I argued that 2*2 = 4 because 2+2 = 4 and if a + b = c then a*b = c that would be false, but it wouldn't prove the original assertion of 2*2 = 4 false. No, I mean 'so if you can spot the logical or factual error in this argument, it actually turns into an extremely compelling argument, or even outright proof, for its antithesis'. Like arguing that there is no situation where a+b = c and a*b = c but then giving the example of where a and b are 2 and thus proving the premise incorrect by counterexample.
And in my experience, even someone being capable of regularly making complex, nuanced, correct arguments does not prevent them from making these types of arguments. It's kind of like knowing or even being good at calculus doesn't make someone incapable of simple addition errors.