Loftwings and Demons

I think extended intellectual arguments between individuals are overall extremely uncommon in large part for two reasons: 1) most people just don't have the time, energy, or willingness to spend that much time arguing with each other and 2) most long arguments probably don't involve much intellect and are rather the result of two equally irasible and stubborn people digging their heels in and deciding if they're just angry or forceful enough, they can *make* the other side agree with them.

But you do find intellectual arguments between academics. The fun part is that a lot of them are exactly because of reason #2 above, just with fancy philosophical arguments,  journal articles, and books added to the mix.

This is why I love reading historical accounts of academics. The level of drama can be absolutely unhinged, but I get to experience it from the safe distance of these people are all very, very dead.

And Why I Should Still Make Them Anyway

I tend to dislike arguing my position for things despite my tendency to also hold strong opinions on things. There are a number of causes for this, but the effects all boil down to the fact that there's no way to construct an argument to ensure that it will be agreed with, and other people also may feel strongly about these things, and thus one can go to a lot of trouble for no gain, and possibly a lot of detriment.

But I should back up now, because I think explaining how I see these dynamics more precisely may help clear up why I find them so unpleasant, for those who are less inclined to feel this way, or may not agree that such airtight arguments are impossible. There's a few reasons I can think of why a person may not accept an argument.

Reason one: Irrespective of if the conclusion is correct, maybe the argument is not correctly constructed, and thus does not actually support the given conclusion. Errors in logic and facts can be made by the best of us, because sadly no level of expertise confers infallibility. But I also hate seeing arguments where I can obviously spot factual or logic errors, and they hardly endear me to the conclusion they argue for. Thus I hate the fact that arguing for a position means I will invariably make arguments of this nature. And though careful study of logic and attention to detail regarding sources can perhaps help to mitigate these issues, the very cleverness that helps enable that can also be used to increase one's capacity to fool oneself, but that neither makes one's argument valid nor precludes others from seeing its flaws (nor would I want the latter, but it is included to show why this can still lead to arguments that are not accepted by others, another situation I also dislike).

Reason two: Irrespective of if the argument made is a valid argument for a correct conclusion, people may not accept it. Perhaps they are simply unpersuadable on this matter, as they accept their own conclusion a priori, as obvious or as irrefutable, and thus refuse to consider an argument against it in the first place. Perhaps they are unable to follow the argument and assume it invalid, or conversely, so clever that they can come up with a self-deceiving argument that the conclusion must be false, which, if they are that clever, may convince many others as well. And lastly, perhaps they do accept your argument and even accept your conclusion to be true, but do not wish it to be acted upon and thus may purposely deny its validity and try to convince others it is false, as has happened with fossil fuel companies trying to cover up the evidence of their product causing climate change.

Reason three: A person may accept your argument without understanding any of its implications, which is, in many cases, useless. Most people make arguments because they want to cause some change in the actions of others. If people agree, perhaps because they like you or respect you, but they don't understand what that agreement entails, they will still not make the changes that you wished to bring about with your argument. There's also the scenario where they disagree but verbally agree so as not to make a fuss, but then do not make the implicated changes due to their disagreement. Thus again, both genuine agreement or deception may be involved, but the result is the same either way. This scenario can be especially frustrating because it begins with an apparent success.

Reason four: I'm wrong. If my conclusion is wrong, I should not argue for it to begin with. But no one can always be right, nor can they always know when they are wrong.

All of this means that arguing things can sometimes feel like a Sisyphean task.

Nevertheless, I also know that not arguing a position is also not incredibly helpful in convincing people of that position. Conflict is also unavoidable, as there is no behavior so innocuous such that no one will find reason to make a fuss over it, and that includes never saying anything or always agreeing with the positions of others (and reason three even talks about why this latter scenario may cause such frustration). And sure, I can be wrong, but so can anyone else. So, I may as well be willing to argue my case, as the inverse is no better.

But I can only sometimes convince myself of this. I wonder which of the reasons is responsible for that.

Sometimes 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. 

In my experience, regardless of the level of reasoning a person is capable of, that reasoning is never equally applied to all things.  There's nothing really strange about this, though, because reasoning takes time and energy.  And there's generally no way someone can apply their highest level of reasoning, or even a moderate level, to every question. 

Instead, many questions, important ones even, are answered by very simple methods, like 'this is what I've seen in my experience so I will generalize it to be universally applicable', 'what does this make me feel', 'what do my friends believe', 'what beliefs best validate my current behavior', 'what does an authority figure believe', or other methods that do not robustly show correctness but allow for a quick answer.  Because otherwise we'd never be able to make a decision to do or say anything.

This is one thing I think is good to keep in mind when seeing that someone hasn't given a good argument for something.  I think it's best to realize that good arguments are always going to be much rarer than bad ones, and that if that doesn't seem to be the case, it's much more likely that the criteria of the argument being good or bad is itself being made by some simple method.  Also, the same factors can cause a person to judge a good argument to be bad.

This is also one thing that gives me pause whenever I think about asserting something.  I hate being wrong, or even being right but not having a good argument for it.  But it's inevitable that will happen frequently, because there are many, many questions that cannot be answered well quickly.

The problem with people saying that their opponents always only have really simplistic counterarguments is not only that it assumes that one's own arguments must be correct, but that this fails to take into consideration the neutral value of intelligence in determining truth.  The whirring gears of the brain can indeed be used to discover legitimate answers, but can equally be employed to perpetuate endless deception against not only others but ourselves.