When deciding if some set of statements will convince you of the truth of something, which is more important to you?
a) The source of those statements?
b) The content of those statements, and the "logic" behind the argument they make?
Why?
When deciding if some set of statements will convince you of the truth of something, which is more important to you?
a) The source of those statements?
b) The content of those statements, and the "logic" behind the argument they make?
Why?
It seems like bad practice to deliberately introduce my own bias into the equation in order to stave off the hypothetical bias of someone else.
You have to. Otherwise you can never even approach an argument on a subject that you don't have professional knowledge of. And if you do have such knowledge, then there's no need to approach someone else's argument when you know plenty enough to make your own conclusions and have them be correct.
Welcome to Planet Obsessive INTP. This is basically what we tend to avoid doing, in the interests of detachment. It makes for cleaner arguments and greater insight. But not for drawing conclusions, agreed.
Yeah. Problem is that any argument can be sound on its surface with presumed truths.
Such as, if I were to argue that ducks which lay golden eggs would impact the value of gold, I'd probably be right - assuming that there actually are ducks that lay golden eggs.
It's very easy to presume the 'duck' in someone else's argument if you don't have experience, which makes the argument appear to be truthful but in actuality it may not be, because of something in the premise is missed that doesn't actually apply to the real world.
I guess the devil can quote the bible for his own purposes.
You have to. Otherwise you can never even approach an argument on a subject that you don't have professional knowledge of. And if you do have such knowledge, then there's no need to approach someone else's argument when you know plenty enough to make your own conclusions and have them be correct.
On that note there have been hoaxes which slipped past peer review in scientific communities just because the language used looked professional and the reviewers took the writers word for too many things because they didn't have the time or knowledge to verify all of it.
I find it better to look at all arguments with a reasonable amount of scrutiny, rather than 'trusting' some sources and being 'skeptical' of others. People make mistakes of reasoning and facts all the time, including myself, and just because I disagree/dislike someone else's politics/think they're nuts doesn't mean they're wrong.