The fundamental, and rather glaring, flaw in Hirstoff’s account is that everyone values truth and therefore it can provide common ground. I’m sure that everyone values truth to some degree, but the degrees vary, and some value other things above truth, and consequently motivations will also vary. — praxis

Yes, some people cannot be argued with, but I think the majority of people actually do care quite a bit about what's true and what's not. They have to (at least on some level) because they wouldn't even survive otherwise. In the end reality always wins and will punish everyone for their incorrect description of it. Let's focus on all those people that do care about truth instead of giving up beforehand, because some people don't.

Sorry Hirnstoff but you lost me 2 minutes in this time.

I know your heart is in the right place, but when it comes to the flat earth it is probably not the case that Larry wants to "know the truth"; Larry wants to make the truth. — Srap Tasmaner

The point of my video is not to show that flat-earthers want to know the truth. It's just an example of a radical view that can be challenged with the methods I described. Although, as I say in the video, I think that even flat-earthers care about the truth as they vehemently proclaim, that the earth is flat. If a person indeed "wants to make the truth" though and can't be swayed from this motivation, then I agree that no successful discussion can take place. But as I said, that's beside the point. I care much more about discussions with everyday people.


Thanks for posting my video! :)

One method of determining our real motivation might be to examine how much time we invest in understanding the other person's point of view. If we're careful and methodical, we might be focused on an intellectual inquiry. If we ask question to clarify their view, we might be on an intellectual inquiry. If we are speed reading to find the Gotcha Gold asap, probably not. — Hippyhead

I think (as you correctly point out) it's all about motivation. If your immediate response to a new idea is, that you are obviously right and there's no value to that new idea, then it's very easy to point out irrelevant contradictory technicalities or to even willfully misunderstand the proponent. However I think we can consciously make sure that the immediate response is a feeling of identification with the other. We are united in the pursuit of truth and (at least in this forum) the enjoyment of thoughtful discussions. And this thought has the power to focus us more on discussing new ideas with honesty and respect.

As long as by this one doesn't mean, 'thou shalt not offend.' Offense is the inescapable nature of the negative essence of philosophy. — JerseyFlight

Depends what you mean by "offend". Offending with arguments and ideas is indeed not only inescapable, but should be appreciated. I know that there's a growing number of people out there who seem incapable of handling such "offense". However I personally wouldn't even call it that. It's just a disagreement, the resolvement of which can lead to valuable progress.

On the other hand I think people should refrain from ad-hominems of all sorts. It simply doesn't help anyone in a debate. But I think that's just common sense, or at least I hope it is.

I think we both identify the same problems and mechanisms that can lead to the downfall of modern civilization as we know it and I agree that simply sharpening your critical thinking skills won't cut it. It can only be part of the solution. I chose this topic for my first video, because I see it as a significant first step towards more civil discourse online. However I don't have any illusions, that it will or can be adopted by a major part of mankind.

And I completely agree that Etiquette has to be another big part of the solution. I'm actually working on my next video right now in which I talk exactly about that: I hope to convey how it's possible for everyone to converse in a well-mannered and polite, but still productive and honest way.

BothAnd Philosophy : So in order to understand the whole truth of our existence, we need to look at both sides of every polarized worldview. In the non-fiction world, we don’t always have to choose either Good or Evil, but we can look for a moderate position near the Golden Mean, the sweet spot I call "BothAnd".
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html — Gnomon

I have read your blog post and found it very interesting. Thanks!

First there are gorgeous videos. That's probably where I would start with my kids, or anyone's kids, if they just didn't yet know what the earth is like. We can now just look and see; we don't have to guess or theorize or calculate anything. — Srap Tasmaner

My approach would be pretty much the same and I'd say that such a video would just be a form of scientific evidence. When I'm saying "scientific", I'm not talking about going deep into theory or mathematics. A simple observation or in your case a recording is something I'd also use to convince my friend.

It's clear to me now, that we aren't disagreeing about the approach at all. I just include your approach within the scope of science.

People who today believe the earth is flat are people who've never been told otherwise or serious conspiracy loonies. Are the latter the target audience for your work? It's a pretty special case. — Srap Tasmaner

To be honest, I'm not sure what I want to do yet. I'll just go step by step for now and make videos on topics I care about. And for the time being that's somehow helping to foster conversations on the internet like the one we're having.

because reaching "objective truth" is not what science does. There is, in science, no Great Book of Truth; there is the Great Book of the Not Yet Disproven with a multivolume appendix, the Great Book of the Hard-to-say. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes I completely agree. Objective truth is an ever elusive goal noone can reach. I just didn't want to expand the conversation in that direction at first. I think there is a "virtual" objective truth out there that we can come closer and closer to reaching, but never fully reach. However this common goal is vitally important for every scientist and philosopher, otherwise we simply have nothing to argue about.

But I am saying that because your views on the nature of science are detachable from the project, they ought to be detached — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think they are detachable, but I think that's pretty much clear by now.

you're failing to engage with people by finding common ground, you're treating your own view as the default, as the needed common ground, and it's not — Srap Tasmaner

Well yes. Everyone has a default they have to defend and this is mine.

I hope you're still enjoying the discussion and I hope you find something worth thinking about in the views I've expressed. — Srap Tasmaner

Oh absolutely. This is a very interesting and enjoyable conversation and you definitely got my brain working on all cylinders, otherwise I wouldn't have invested the time to respond.

it's just hard to see, and it's definitely not what you think it is, since in this case what you think it is is what we're debating. — Srap Tasmaner

Maybe one last attempt to find out if I can understand your position. If you don't think this will lead to anything valuable, that's completely fine, but here we go:
As I've stated before, I think that every pursuit of truth is ultimately scientific, just more or less sophisticated. You on the other hand described the method of using "ordinary informal reasoning" as an alternative, right? I think this calls back to what you said at the very beginning : 'rather than "this is how Science does it" I'd lean on a folksier "that makes sense doesn't it?" approach'. If I now imagine trying to convince my friend that the earth isn't flat, I'd assume that he isn't much of a scientist, so a "folksier" approach seems to be more promising. While I would start by arguing for the scientific method and how this seems to be the best way to get us to the truth about things and then follow it up by scientific evidence that the earth is actually an oblate spheroid, you would approach this conversation how exactly? How would you try to convince my friend? How would your approach differ from mine?

science produces results that have an air of paradox about them, that tables are not solid, that the air is billions of invisible things, that the earth goes around the sun — Srap Tasmaner

That is only the case, because our natural perception is limited. Our hands can't distinguish individual atoms, therefore we only perceive the sum counter force. The mechanism by which we come to the conclusion that a table is solid, is still based on evidence. We just can't perceive the whole picture without the help of technology like electron microscopes.

My "challenge", if that's the word, to Hirnstoff was this: how much does the program of improving discussion on the internet depend upon some particular epistemology or some particular view of science? Or depend on accepting those views? — Srap Tasmaner

Ultimately, if we can't agree upon the basic fact that an objective truth is reachable by means of observation, then yes, we can't collaberate. However I don't think that this philosophical debate is a good representation of a conversation with an average Joe that thinks the earth is flat. Most people, at least in my mind, accept science as a good way to reach an objective truth about things.

I happen to hold different views. So what? We're having an enjoyable conversation. Why does everyone want to convert me? Am I the only one that finds that a little odd given the topic of our discussion? Dawnstorm tried to point out that just saying "tools" instead of "beliefs" wasn't going to get you there. We have since then been arguing over my divergent views of the tools. Why are we doing that? — Srap Tasmaner

I'm trying to "convert" you, because this is a debate and we disagree about a fundamental aspect of our existence. But I thought that this disagreement was solvable, because I can still easily integrate each example you proposed into my existing philosophical framework. If you want to argue that my attempt to improve online discourse, will inevitably lead to fundamental disagreements like this, I disagree, because I don't think that this is how most people think about the world and their pursuit of truth.

And just to clarify: My goal is not to make everyone a sophisticated critical thinker. I think some people can be helped more or less towards an improved and more sophisticated pursuit of truth. However most will only take away a simple "be nice!" or "don't insult", and that's fine. There has to be a pragmatic cut-off somewhere, which leaves the philosopher in me unsatisfied, but ultimately allows me to move on and focus on the goal I set myself.

Thanks! Hm that's weird. It should be available on YouTube. If you watched it here you actually watched an embedded YouTube video. Searching "Hirnstoff" on YouTube should work as well.

Thank you. I'll try my best to do my part, but I don't expect to change the world with my little attempt at making YouTube videos. There are many other topics I also want to make videos on. This is just the first stop, hopefully.

I warn against this kind of idealising of the past, what makes you believe things were better before? — Judaka

I agree. Critical thinking skills have been a rarity long before the internet changed our world. I just think that the internet supercharges the problems that arise as a result.

We should also look at how the information is being presented, people are less likely to admit that they're wrong when they're being called an idiot. They are also less likely to admit they're wrong to people they dislike or strongly disagree with on other topics. These things detract from the pleasure of being proven wrong and turn it into a humiliating experience. — Judaka

Absolutely. Those are things I want to talk about in future videos.

Overall, the list of pre-requisites for someone being in a position where they're likely to admit they're wrong when they are wrong is long and so it's not surprising that it rarely happens. — Judaka

But we still have the power to change our own thinking and to try to achieve civil discourse. Changing our conduct online can have wonderful exponential effects. I remember a few comments over the years, where a good debate actually took place. Apologies were expressed after some wrongdoing and good arguments acknowledged and all of a sudden other people chimed in expressing how wonderful this particular comment thread is. I think many people are seeing the dire state of online discourse today and the real world consequences this can have and are willing to do their part. We don't have to change every single person, just enough that these fruitful debates are becoming a more common occurrence and can act as a good example for others.

I don't know why this conversation took a sudden turn here. I don't have a problem with you at all. On the contrary I enjoy your input very much. Is it because I said "some more clumsily than others"? Because that wasn't at all meant as an insult at you, but rather at QAnon folks. If so, I apologize to have caused this misunderstanding. I should have phrased that clearer.

Back to the topic: I think we're mostly talking semantics here. In my view the only way to get to a good description of reality, is to observe reality repeatedly and to extract useful patterns. A child for example observes its parents' speech and learns how to talk by extracting patterns of sound and attaching meaning to them. One could even say that it conducts experiments by altering some words until it gets the desired reaction. I'd call even that intuitive learning process a form of "science". The point I'm trying to make is, that every person has to follow a procedure of repeated observation and even experiments in order to get to a good description of reality. In my mind there is therefore no difference between science and "Ordinary informal reasoning" other than the degree of sophistication. And thus if I wanted to rely on people using "Ordinary informal reasoning" as the method to get to the truth, I'd inevitably try to sharpen this reasoning and to nudge it more towards "scientific thinking". How would a discussion with a QAnon theorist even look like, if I would avoid asking for evidence (which to me is inherently scientific)?

We might agree that it is "attempted science", but I believe the attempt should not be made. — Srap Tasmaner

It is most definitely attempted science. Those people also just want to get to the truth and I would approach them arguing to question the way they've got there. How do you know that the attempt should not be made? How do you determine that QAnon conspiracies are non-sense? Of course by trying to figure out what the evidence is. Another attempt at science ... that's all we do when we want to get to the bottom of things. Some more clumsily than others

But this looks like a non-starter in half a dozen ways. How quickly do you think, in such a conversation, you'll find yourself wanting to say, "But that's not evidence"? — Srap Tasmaner

Well in that case the focus of the conversation should be what constitutes good evidence and why, which is also a very important foundation to build.

Consider that what distinguishes science from ordinary informal reasoning is the positing of invisible entities and hidden forces; what we see in the world is the effect of these invisible armies at work — Srap Tasmaner

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here. "Ordinary informal reasoning" also relies on scientific thinking, just without the awareness. To use your past example "Should I take the umbrella or not?". People decide this by making a prognosis about the weather, by watching the weather report or by simply looking up at the sky. We are simply recognizing a pattern and are using our learned knowledge to deduce that it might be raining soon. While we aren't conducting formal scientific studies, we still rely on the same mechanisms to forecast the future.

That suggests two solutions: yours, get people to do their science better; mine, get them to stop doing science at all. In favor of my approach, they're already demonstrably competent at doing jobs and planning birthday parties and judging produce, but real science is actually pretty hard. — Srap Tasmaner

Those two solutions are the same with a different label. It seems to me that your solution simply doesn't call it science and instead calls it common sense or "ordinary informal reasoning". I think we are calling something common sense when the claim isn't extraordinary and therefore doesn't require extraordinary evidence. "The sky is darkgray and it's autumn, so it'll probably rain soon". However we must rely on our intuitive scientific thinking to come to this conclusion.

So my question for Hirnstoff is how you can you do something like that on youtube? Or on reddit? So much of what we use to judge trustworthiness will be missing. But we need something that approximates it. — Srap Tasmaner

As I'm already planning a video on how I think we can improve discussions directly, I just want to mention a few short thoughts:
We have to bridge the gap that anonymity creates on the internet. We can do that by actively making sure that we state our intentions upfront. "I'm curious why you think that way" "Show me the evidence that convinced you and I'll be open to accepting it as well, if it's convincing"
If no evidence is provided, we can emphasize that the opponent shouldn't build their beliefs on such a weak or even non-existent foundation. If evidence is provided, the discussion can lead to a rational debate about the validity of the provided evidence. If the evidence is even convincing, we have learnt something. Insulting each other or their beliefs and ideas won't change a thing. Opening up, trying to trace the way they came to their conclusion, can help in talking objectively about the validity of the claim or even help us to improve our own perspective. By starting a discussion this way, we show others that we respect them as a person that is also trying to figure out what's true and what's not and thus can connect on this basic level.

Thanks for the honest criticism. I'm not sure if you watched the video, because I'm pretty sure we are on the same page here. I emphasized that it's important to identify with your tools rather than with your acquired knowledge, which explicitely includes actively working on improving those tools. Even though everyone's tools of thinking should in the end be way more stable than the acquired knowledge.

E.g: I am happy to accept good scientific arguments that the Moon is made of cheese, however it takes a lot to make me question my fundamental scientific thinking. Even though there are definitely some parts of my applied scientific thinking that need to be readjusted.

And as I think it's necessary for human beings to form an identity, which means finding the constants in your mind, I think the idea of being defined by your way of thinking and the process of improving it, is a good candidate to focus on. It allows us to feel pride and a sense of accomplishment whenever we improved our perspective.

Thanks! Yeah we are rapidly unlearning how to talk to each other and if I can somehow help to make online conversations healthier, I'll do it. There are many more aspects to this though, that I want to create videos on. Identifying with your tools of thinking is just one (albeit important) part of the solution imo.