He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
- John Stuart Mill
Ironically, I’ve never understood the mindset of those commenters. How can you argue against something, or even know if you should argue against it, without knowing what “it” even is?
I generally go a step further than believing that every argument should be understood, and say that every argument should be considered as well. You shouldn’t reject an argument purely because it gives you bad vibes. If it’s obviously wrong, it should be obvious why it’s wrong. In practice you don’t always have time to engage with someone promoting obviously dumb ideas, but you should at least yourself know why you consider them to be wrong. I call this “radical possibilism” because you always consider the possibility that an argument is correct.
You might like this podcast: https://youarenotsosmart.com/
This guy has done a lot of great work in trying to understand how conspiracy thinking works, how minds can change, how arriving at a state of “knowing” is an emotional state (and not a rational one), how biases change people thinking, etc.
Thanks, sounds interesting! Maybe this will be the one that finally gets me to check out podcasts :)
He has written a book if you prefer to read
They like it or hate it. There is flocking behavior too. Simple. Pretty easy to model, no doubt.