This is the Socratic method of arguing. It can also be as a Dark Side technique by choosing your questions so as to lead your counterpart into a trap—that their position is logically inconsistent, or implies that they have to bite a bullet that they don’t want to admit to biting.
I’ve seen this “countered” by people simply refusing to talk any more, by repeating their original statement, or saying “No, that’s not it” followed by something that seems incomprehensible.
Why would that be a problem in their position actually is inconsistent? People don’t like having their inconsistencies exposed, but it’s still a legitimate concern for a truth-seeking debate.
Also leads to undesirable outcome of provoking even more screwed up beliefs by propagating them from one screwed up belief. If you want to convince someone (as opposed to convincing yourself and.or audience that you are right), you ought to try to start from the correct beliefs, and try to edge your way towards the screwed up ones. But that doesn’t work either because people usually have surprisingly good instrumental model of the absence of the dragon in the garage, and see instantly what you are trying to do to their imaginary dragon. Speaking of which, it is easy to convince people to refine their instrumental model of non-existence of dragon, than to make them stop saying there is a dragon.
People not formally trained usually don’t understand the idea of proof by contradiction.
Reason works in any direction; you can start from nonsense and then come up with more unrelated nonsense, or you can start from sense and steam-roll over the nonsense.
I’ve seen this “countered” by people simply refusing to talk any more, by repeating their original statement, or saying “No, that’s not it” followed by something that seems incomprehensible.
Or, if you try to pull this kind of stunt at them too much, some good old ad baculum.
This is the Socratic method of arguing. It can also be as a Dark Side technique by choosing your questions so as to lead your counterpart into a trap—that their position is logically inconsistent, or implies that they have to bite a bullet that they don’t want to admit to biting.
I’ve seen this “countered” by people simply refusing to talk any more, by repeating their original statement, or saying “No, that’s not it” followed by something that seems incomprehensible.
Why would that be a problem in their position actually is inconsistent? People don’t like having their inconsistencies exposed, but it’s still a legitimate concern for a truth-seeking debate.
Also leads to undesirable outcome of provoking even more screwed up beliefs by propagating them from one screwed up belief. If you want to convince someone (as opposed to convincing yourself and.or audience that you are right), you ought to try to start from the correct beliefs, and try to edge your way towards the screwed up ones. But that doesn’t work either because people usually have surprisingly good instrumental model of the absence of the dragon in the garage, and see instantly what you are trying to do to their imaginary dragon. Speaking of which, it is easy to convince people to refine their instrumental model of non-existence of dragon, than to make them stop saying there is a dragon.
People not formally trained usually don’t understand the idea of proof by contradiction.
Reason as memetic immune disorder?
Reason works in any direction; you can start from nonsense and then come up with more unrelated nonsense, or you can start from sense and steam-roll over the nonsense.
edit: but yea, along those lines.
Or, if you try to pull this kind of stunt at them too much, some good old ad baculum.