Argument from bad faith

[Masterhawk]

Common sense suggests that the purpose of debate is to reach a conclusion. If two people disagree on something, they should work it out between them and reach a conclusion. If there's an asymmetry of information (one party knows something that the other doesn't) it should be shared with the other party so that any misconceptions can be cleared up. The point of debate is so that opposing sides can reach the truth and reconcile.

This is not why people who argue in bad faith debate.

People who argue in bad faith aren't so much intending to reach the truth as they are to reach a conclusion that they have already decided on. No matter what the facts of the matter may dictate, the person arguing in bad faith will never change his mind.

This is a problem because you could debate with them for an hour and they still wouldn't change their minds. It's almost as if it's a waste of time. With that in mind, it's important to know if the person you're engaging with is arguing in bad faith and also if you're arguing in bad faith.

How to tell if someone is acting in bad faith

Minor telltale signs

• They get angry at the other side, seemingly for no reason but disagreeing with them
• They frequently engage in logical fallacies.
• Their behavior does not reflect what they argue. It's generally assumed that people should practice what they preach. This is only a minor telltale sign because there is some degree of cognitive dissonance. For example, during wave 1 in which most states were on lockdown, Gavin Newsom attended a party and the mayor of Chicago got a haircut. This does not mean that social distancing and lockdowns don't reduce the spread of COVID. Rather, it could simply be a case of hypocrisy. The person making the argument may not be willing to practice what he preaches (out of sheer laziness or selfishness) but that doesn't necessarily make it false.
• They censor you once they find out you disagree with them.

Big red flags

• They frequently fall back on points which have been refuted over and over again. This is especially if they have heard the refutation to that argument. If you see the same argument that was refuted a day ago, he's probably arguing in bad faith.
• There's a basic conflict of interest. As Upton Sinclair once said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it." This is why you should never ask someone representing the tobacco industry whether cigarettes cause cancer or the fossil fuel industry whether climate change is real.
• The arguer is obviously in a position where he should know better. For example, he may have easy access to information that would refute his point.
• The arguer is not particularly known for honesty.

How to tell if you're acting in bad faith

Obviously, any of the above would apply to you, so the points below will be on self-reflection.

• Are you more concerned with winning the argument or actually finding the truth / helping the other person reach the truth?
• Do you actually research the subject beforehand or do you just jump in with the limited knowledge you have?
  • Or perhaps a better question, do you assume that no one else has it figured out except you, even the experts in a given field?
• Did you already decide your conclusion before the debate?

But perhaps the most important question is whether you would be willing to change your mind if you found out that you were wrong.

How to deal with them

Once you have spotted someone arguing in bad faith, it will be important to know how to deal with a bad faith debater if you're ever going to get into a debate. So here are the different tactics.

Power through it: This means debunking every single argument put in place by the bad faith arguer. The main problem with this method is that you'll probably be there for awhile as your opponent is an immovable object.

Disengage: This saves on time significantly compared to the first method. It basically involves pulling out of the argument, often accompanied by pointing out that you don't engage with bad faith arguments and blocking the offender. The obvious upside is that you will never again have to deal with someone who will just waste your time. The downside is that it will leave the offender with the impression that he won the debate because you couldn't refute his talking points. Any standerbys may likewise get the impression that you couldn't address their arguments and had to resort to censorship. This tactic may save on time but it won't prevent him from influencing other people.

Address: This invovles pointing out the tactic and leaving soruces which dispute the argument being made. Then disengage. Bystanders may read the sources and find that the other party's arguments are less than meritable. How much time you spend refuting the other party's arguments may depend on how influential the latter is.

 

[watsup]

If arguments from bad faith were eliminated, DP would have to shut down for lack of action (especially from the right wingers).

 

[Daisy]

If arguments from bad faith were eliminated, DP would have to shut down for lack of action (especially from the right wingers).

Ha! Ain't that the truth? lol

I prefer the disengage method, once I realize the discussion is going nowhere...some like chasing their tails...I do not...

 

[watsup]

Ha! Ain't that the truth? lol

I prefer the disengage method, once I realize the discussion is going nowhere...some like chasing their tails...I do not...

I GENERALLY do the same if the “debate” dis-evolves into a rather juvenile “did too-did not” format, although I will sometimes use the “power through it” method if the topic is a serious one. It depends.

 

[Waddy]

Scientists can debate and exchange information in search of objective truth. There are no truths in political debates, only opinions. There the purpose of debate is to sway opinions.

 

[Masterhawk]

Scientists can debate and exchange information in search of objective truth. There are no truths in political debates, only opinions. There the purpose of debate is to sway opinions.

Which makes it all the more telling when the overwhelming majority of scientists agree on something.

 

[Waddy]

Which makes it all the more telling when the overwhelming majority of scientists agree on something.

Yes, but a majority does not make it truth. Even if only one scientist has it figured correctly, he/she is right. Science isn't majority rule. Or at least it shouldn't be. Often science and scientists are manipulated for political purposes. Especially statistics.

As Mark Twain said; "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

 

[Masterhawk]

Yes, but a majority does not make it truth. Even if only one scientist has it figured correctly, he/she is right. Science isn't majority rule. Or at least it shouldn't be. Often science and scientists are manipulated for political purposes. Especially statistics.

As Mark Twain said; "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

I get what you're saying but who can we trust if not the experts? I'm not saying that scientists define truth but chances are that you know even less about the statistics than they do.

 

[bomberfox]

The purpose of debate is to determine who is correct, the purpose of discussion is to reach a conclusion.

 

[Waddy]

I get what you're saying but who can we trust if not the experts? I'm not saying that scientists define truth but chances are that you know even less about the statistics than they do.

Under the right circumstances, I tend to believe the experts. But often the scientists work under grants, which won't be renewed unless the research produces favorable results, and I've seen statistics manipulated. Especially by the press, who spin whatever the scientists say to make it fit their agenda. Unfortunately, scientists have no control over how their research will be reported.
On top of all this science today has a lot of poor quality research being done, and almost none of it peer reviewed. Very seldom is are study results verified by duplicating the study. No money in that anymore. This lack of self-policing in the scientific community has led us to where we are today; what research can you trust? Lots of junk science going on now. And very much a band wagon effect. Mostly because money is always the name of the game. Very few dollars available for "pure" scientific research anymore. And now science is also very political. None of that is good for "objective" science.

 

[watsup]

Under the right circumstances, I tend to believe the experts. But often the scientists work under grants, which won't be renewed unless the research produces favorable results, and I've seen statistics manipulated. Especially by the press, who spin whatever the scientists say to make it fit their agenda. Unfortunately, scientists have no control over how their research will be reported.
On top of all this science today has a lot of poor quality research being done, and almost none of it peer reviewed. Very seldom is are study results verified by duplicating the study. No money in that anymore. This lack of self-policing in the scientific community has led us to where we are today; what research can you trust? Lots of junk science going on now. And very much a band wagon effect. Mostly because money is always the name of the game. Very few dollars available for "pure" scientific research anymore. And now science is also very political. None of that is good for "objective" science.

Do you have any actual sources for any of this, or is it just yet another typical right wing screed against mainstream science. Can you name some of the “junk science” that you claim? That’s a phrase that was often used by Rush Limbaugh and other right wing “commentators”. Is That where you get your “information”?

 

[Waddy]

Do you have any actual sources for any of this, or is it just yet another typical right wing screed against mainstream science. Can you name some of the “junk science” that you claim? That’s a phrase that was often used by Rush Limbaugh and other right wing “commentators”. Is That where you get your “information”?

You could have Googled this easily. Just lazy, I guess. My youngest son is involved in medical research, he manages a medical research database for a major teaching hospital. We have discussed this problem often. It's not news; and it is a fact. Research is in crisis in almost every field. Perhaps you're a left wing nut job that believes everything he sees on MSNBC must be true.

Most clinical research findings are false. As for the few studies with results that are true, well, here’s more bad news. Most of those findings are useless. These are but two of the bold statements made by Dr. John Ioannidis in a recent paper in PLoS Medicine.

Is most clinical research useless?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

How many times have you encountered a study — on, say, weight loss — that trumpeted one fad, only to see another study discrediting it a week later?
That’s because many medical studies are junk. It’s an open secret in the research community, and it even has a name: “the reproducibility crisis.”
For any study to have legitimacy, it must be replicated, yet only half of medical studies celebrated in newspapers hold water under serious follow-up scrutiny — and about two-thirds of the “sexiest” cutting-edge reports, including the discovery of new genes linked to obesity or mental illness, are later “disconfirmed.”

Medical studies are almost always bogus

How many times have you encountered a study — on, say, weight loss — that trumpeted one fad, only to see another study discrediting it a week later? That’s because many medical studies are junk. It…

nypost.com

“We Must Stop the Avalanche of Low-Quality Research”. Here you have it:
While brilliant and progressive research continues apace here and there, the amount of redundant, inconsequential, and outright poor research has swelled in recent decades, filling countless pages in journals and monographs.

Science | AAAS

blogs.sciencemag.org

A scientist from the drug company Amgen had reviewed the results of 53 studies that were originally thought to be highly promising — findings likely to lead to important new drugs. But when the Amgen scientist tried to replicate those promising results, in most cases he couldn't. "He tried to reproduce them all," Harris tells Morning Edition host David Greene. "And of those 53, he found he could only reproduce six."
That was "a real eye-opener," says Harris, whose new book Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions explores the ways even some talented scientists go wrong — pushed by tight funding, competition and other constraints to move too quickly and sloppily to produce useful results. "A lot of what everybody has reported about medical research in the last few years is actually wrong," Harris says. "It seemed right at the time but has not stood up to the test of time."
The impact of weak biomedical research can be especially devastating, Harris learned, as he talked to doctors and patients. And some prominent scientists he interviewed told him they agree that it's time to recognize the dysfunction in the system and fix it.

How Flawed Science Is Undermining Good Medicine

U.S. taxpayers pay $30 billion a year to fund biomedical research aimed at finding better treatments. But competition for scarce funding and tenure may be prompting some scientists to cut corners.

www.npr.org

Worthless research overwhelms reviewers and muddies important findings, by placing high-quality manuscripts in “an increasingly longer queue”.
Poor science or ill-informed reviews or opinions undertaken “only for the sake of improving the author's bibliometric record”, increases the risk that unsupported or even harmful claims will become accepted by “less well-informed media outlets.”
Reviewer fatigue is another cited problem, with the knock on potential to reduce the “acceptable standards” of journals.
“Sadly, this can lead to a ripple effect where the inappropriate perception is that scientific journals, like media, are willing to competitively publish COVID-19 manuscripts ‘to be first’, validating the deluge of low-quality submissions from predatory or inexperienced authors,” the op-ed says.

COVID-19 pandemic leads to flood of ‘useless’ science

A group of concerned scientists has warned against a flood of “useless” science submitted to journals during the COVID-19 pandemic, which they say is overwhelming reviewers and leaving good research “in an increasingly longer queue”.

sciencebusiness.net

I highlighted the important parts to help you with comprehension. No need to thank me. And have Masterhawk read this as well. prolly won't do no good....

 

[watsup]

You could have Googled this easily. Just lazy, I guess. My youngest son is involved in medical research, he manages a medical research database for a major teaching hospital. We have discussed this problem often. It's not news; and it is a fact. Research is in crisis in almost every field. Perhaps you're a left wing nut job that believes everything he sees on MSNBC must be true.

Is most clinical research useless?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Medical studies are almost always bogus

How many times have you encountered a study — on, say, weight loss — that trumpeted one fad, only to see another study discrediting it a week later? That’s because many medical studies are junk. It…

nypost.com

Science | AAAS

blogs.sciencemag.org

How Flawed Science Is Undermining Good Medicine

U.S. taxpayers pay $30 billion a year to fund biomedical research aimed at finding better treatments. But competition for scarce funding and tenure may be prompting some scientists to cut corners.

www.npr.org

COVID-19 pandemic leads to flood of ‘useless’ science

A group of concerned scientists has warned against a flood of “useless” science submitted to journals during the COVID-19 pandemic, which they say is overwhelming reviewers and leaving good research “in an increasingly longer queue”.

sciencebusiness.net

I highlighted the important parts to help you with comprehension. No need to thank me. And have Masterhawk read this as well. prolly won't do no good....

These are just opinions. Perhaps you are a right wing nut job who believes everything he hears on FOX. Was there widespread fraud in the presidential election?

 

[Waddy]

These are just opinions. Perhaps you are a right wing nut job who believes everything he hears on FOX. Was there widespread fraud in the presidential election?

Got a science denier here, folks. I accept your surrender.

 

[it's just me]

I get what you're saying but who can we trust if not the experts? I'm not saying that scientists define truth but chances are that you know even less about the statistics than they do.

First you have to be able to recognize an expert when you see one.

 

[HK.227]

I get what you're saying but who can we trust <snip>

You can trust noone.
And don't make the mistake of thinking that this rule doesn't apply to yourself.

Fortunately you can also trust everyone.
You can always trust everyone to be who they are.


As regards scientists, the majority of them used to believe in an earth centric universe. Clearly the consensus was wrong, so they can't always be trusted.
Equally clearly, never trusting scientists isn't going to be practical either. The solution is probably something like considering our currrent cosmological model a work in progress, being continually improved upon.

 

[jmotivator]

The purpose of debate is to determine who is correct, the purpose of discussion is to reach a conclusion.

Not really, the purpose of debate is to make a more compelling argument. You can win a debate and still be wrong.

 

[jmotivator]

First you have to be able to recognize an expert when you see one.

Which is why "Appeal to Authority Fallacy" exists. Anyone claiming to have the inside track on which experts you should trust based on head count have only admitted that you shouldn't trust them to pick experts.

 

[ataraxia]

Scientists can debate and exchange information in search of objective truth. There are no truths in political debates, only opinions. There the purpose of debate is to sway opinions.

Well, not really these days. Much of the conservative worldview and belief system today is just based on frank ignorance and misinformation. That's why they consider colleges some sort of conspiracy out to systematically destroy them. Well, they have a point.

They believe things like that the Earth is only 6000 years old, or that Reagan was right and trickle down economics works, or that being gay is a choice you can just pray away, or that the founding fathers of this country did not want strict separation of church and state, or that climate change is not real and we can't do something about it, or that doctors from all over the world are wrong when they tell us Covid is more than just a common cold. So if you attempt any kind of education to correct such abject ignorance, they accuse you of "liberal indoctrination".

But this is not just a simple matter of a difference of opinions. This is just a difference of educated people vs. misinformed and ignorant people. They just need an education, that's all. Too bad they fight it tooth and nail- because ignorance is not that hard a problem to fix. Stubborn, blind, and willful ignorance, on the other hand, is a much harder problem to address.

 

[ataraxia]

First you have to be able to recognize an expert when you see one.

The unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet on climate change may be a good place to start.

 

[Waddy]

Well, not really these days. Much of the conservative worldview and belief system today is just based on frank ignorance and misinformation. That's why they consider colleges some sort of conspiracy out to systematically destroy them. Well, they have a point.

They believe things like that the Earth is only 6000 years old, or that Reagan was right and trickle down economics works, or that being gay is a choice you can just pray away, or that the founding fathers of this country did not want strict separation of church and state, or that climate change is not real and we can't do something about it, or that doctors from all over the world are wrong when they tell us Covid is more than just a common cold. So if you attempt any kind of education to correct such abject ignorance, they accuse you of "liberal indoctrination".

But this is not just a simple matter of a difference of opinions. This is just a difference of educated people vs. misinformed and ignorant people. They just need an education, that's all. Too bad they fight it tooth and nail- because ignorance is not that hard a problem to fix. Stubborn, blind, and willful ignorance, on the other hand, is a much harder problem to address.

thanks for making my point.