Eric Luttrell | Zombies, straw men, and other weak arguments @ericluttrell | Uploaded February 2024 | Updated October 2024, 1 hour ago.
When we're in a hurry to justify our own foregone conclusions, especially when faced with a counter-argument, we tend to resort to a few strategies that might make us feel good about ourselves, but they don't actually get us any closer to the truth.
1. Zombie warrants: We often make explicit some of the familiar platitudes that sound inspiring when vaguely worded, but when we try to apply them to some (but not all) specific situations, we might find that they do more harm than good.
2. Straw-man arguments: If the opposition's argument looks weak, that will make our argument look stronger, right? So why not make the opposition's argument look weaker than it really is? That will work as long as my only goal is appearing to be right, instead of actually being right, and if my audience doesn't know the difference.
3. Hollow-man arguments: If a weak opposition makes your argument look stronger, why not make up an opposing argument that doesn't actually exist? Then you can make it as ridiculous as possible and pretend that it is the only alternative to your own.
If, on the other hand, our goal is to understand a complex reality, we will actually need to understand the blind spots in our own reasoning and the strengths of opposing arguments. This requires us to find the "steel man" argument for the opposition: the biggest challenge out there.
The sources texts for this lecture are:
Your Undivided Attention podcast (Tristan Harris & Aza Raskin). "How zombie values infect society." humanetech.com/podcast/how-zombie-values-infect-society
Caitlin Flanagan (Feb. 2, 2024) "Colleges Are Lying to Their Students" theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/thinking-yourself/677321
Shane Parrish & Rhiannon Beaubien (Farnam Street Blog). Bad arguments and how to avoid them. https://fs.blog/2020/05/bad-arguments/
When we're in a hurry to justify our own foregone conclusions, especially when faced with a counter-argument, we tend to resort to a few strategies that might make us feel good about ourselves, but they don't actually get us any closer to the truth.
1. Zombie warrants: We often make explicit some of the familiar platitudes that sound inspiring when vaguely worded, but when we try to apply them to some (but not all) specific situations, we might find that they do more harm than good.
2. Straw-man arguments: If the opposition's argument looks weak, that will make our argument look stronger, right? So why not make the opposition's argument look weaker than it really is? That will work as long as my only goal is appearing to be right, instead of actually being right, and if my audience doesn't know the difference.
3. Hollow-man arguments: If a weak opposition makes your argument look stronger, why not make up an opposing argument that doesn't actually exist? Then you can make it as ridiculous as possible and pretend that it is the only alternative to your own.
If, on the other hand, our goal is to understand a complex reality, we will actually need to understand the blind spots in our own reasoning and the strengths of opposing arguments. This requires us to find the "steel man" argument for the opposition: the biggest challenge out there.
The sources texts for this lecture are:
Your Undivided Attention podcast (Tristan Harris & Aza Raskin). "How zombie values infect society." humanetech.com/podcast/how-zombie-values-infect-society
Caitlin Flanagan (Feb. 2, 2024) "Colleges Are Lying to Their Students" theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/thinking-yourself/677321
Shane Parrish & Rhiannon Beaubien (Farnam Street Blog). Bad arguments and how to avoid them. https://fs.blog/2020/05/bad-arguments/
