Reason in the Age of Disinformation (EDITED 4/22)

A primer, for people who argue on the Internet

I.

A classically constructed rational argument consists of just three parts:

• Evidence (facts; “given these data points”)
• Arguments (logic; “and this chain of reasoning”)
• Conclusions (results; “it follows that…”)

Within the rules of Classical Rationality, then,

• IF you accept my Evidence,
• AND IF you accept my Arguments,
• THEN you must ALSO accept my Conclusions.

Good so far? Good.

A classically constructed rational argument is also vulnerable to three lines of attack. But they aren’t the same three lines.

Two are of course familiar:

• You can attack my Evidence (“your facts are wrong”);
• You can attack my Arguments (“your logic/reasoning is fallacious”)

But the third is strangely slippery:

• You can attack my Standard of Evidence (“your facts are right, but you’ve cherry-picked them to support your position”).

Still good? Let’s unpack.

A Standard of Evidence (also known as a Methodology) is a bit like scaffolding.

Built around an argument-to-be, it

• Limits the argument’s scope
• Supports its construction
• Enables its future inspection

By design (and by definition!), an argument’s Standard of Evidence is necessarily both selective and predetermined. Once selected, it stays set. It cannot be altered without robbing Classical Rationality of its persuasive power.

Changing it mid-project starts an avalanche that

• alters the Evidence,
• unsettles the Arguments,
• and invalidates the Conclusions.

So choosing a standard of evidence is not a trivial problem.

Scientific papers implicitly recognize the Standard of Evidence problem’s importance by listing it before the other sections:

• FIRST, describe the Methodology (or Experimental Design)
• NEXT, summarize the Evidence (or Data Collected)
• ONLY THEN, make the Arguments (or Discussion)
• FINALLY, draw the Conclusions (or Recommendations)

But there is a dodge going on here! The dodge is at once simple, effective, and fatally short-sighted:

Scientific arguments are persuasive to other scientists, because an implicit methodological consensus already exists within the scientific community.

By and large, the scientific community has already agreed WHICH methodological approaches should be allowed. If you can meet the established scientific standard, then you have a fair chance at persuading scientific minds.

BUT:

Standard-of-Evidence attacks are strangely slippery because they are launched from OUTSIDE the community consensus.

Substitute “Republicans,” “Democrats,” or “News Media” for scientists in the paragraph above, and the problem becomes clear. Ingroup persuasion isn’t convincing to outsiders who don’t share the community standards.

SO:

Consensus is what enables rational persuasion. NOT the other way around. This limit is baked into Classical Rationality.

Classical Rationality cannot create consensus. That is not within its persuasive power.

How does Classical Rationality persuade? By mapping the unsuspected extent of an ALREADY EXISTING consensus, as indicated by the presence of a mutually accepted Standard of Evidence.

And the rules of Classical Rationality don’t tell you how to find one.

NOTE: ESSAY UNDER CONSTRUCTION FROM HERE ON OUT, PARDON MY DUST

II.

What is the internet’s role in all this?

Classical Rationality was invented well before mass communication. You didn’t need to worry so much about community consensus at the time. Arguments, even those that turned violent, still moved at human speeds.

But the internet has exploded community, hardening and shattering the dominant narrative into a million Humpty-Dumpty-like pieces, which it then dumps into a kaleidoscope that is spinning faster and faster.

The trick is to ask, “as the strangeness accelerates to infinity, what remains the same?” Find that, and you’ve found your source of long-term community stability.

But to persuade anyone else of what you have found by argument, you’ll still need a method for finding consensus.

We’ll come back to this long-term goal later.

III.

If we are to modernize Classical Rationality by generating a few handy rules for consensus-finding, it might help to take a closer look at the problem.

Remember, the internet didn’t cause this weakness in Classical Rationality’s ability to persuade. It just amplified it to extreme levels.

Mostly, it did this by adding a third and fourth dimension of slippery strangeness to Standard of Evidence attacks.

Since we can only solve the standard of evidence problem by addressing both halves at once — old and new, original and amplified, logical and technological — we’ll want to touch each one of its four dimensions before devising our solution.

The first dimension, HEIGHT, is like an infinite hall of mirrors.

Vertical Standard of Evidence attacks come from outside the argument. They require no familiarity, and stack effortlessly to infinity:

• What is your Methodology?
• By what Standard did you choose (that Methodology)?
• By what Method did you select [your Standard for choosing (that Methodology)]?

The second dimension, DEPTH, recalls the parable of “the blind men and the elephant.”

Factional Standard of Evidence attacks come from inside an argument. They require partial familiarity, and converge into constant infighting:

• Experts aren’t expert in all of the relevant subdomains
• Vital components tend to use vastly different terminology
• Big-picture dynamics are invisible from the trenches

The third dimension, BREADTH, is a rapidly evolving side effect of Social Media.

Swarm-based Standard of Evidence attacks are technological creatures.

The fourth dimension, TIME.

In theory, Standard-of-Evidence attacks along each of the four dimensions are operationally infinite, and therefore indefensible. In theory, standard of evidence attacks cannot be stopped. Not individually, or in any combination. In theory.

But in practice, out there in the real world, each one ultimately runs up against a rigid (and therefore defensible) operational floor, even though the exact location of that floor often remains unwritten, and often varies from community to professional community.

ALL that is needed for that operational floor to form up, putting a hard stop to infinite recursion, is a sufficiently shared sense of “the way things should be done.” That’s it.

Not truth. Not even coherence.

Just consensus.

Consensus is a necessary precondition for Rational Argument. NOT the other way around.

Find consensus FIRST. Then, and ONLY THEN, start making your persuasive arguments.

That’s how we ALL win.

TLDR: Rational Argument is a tool for advancing an existing consensus, NOT for establishing one in the first place. In order to win the rational persuasion game, you must first establish consensus that you and your opponent are playing on the same field.

Consider the grass. Your personal chessboard may not be the only game in play.