I’ve become increasingly aware of “ultra-BS” in a lot of public discourse. In relying on arguments that are constructed to be easy to make but hard to rebut, your ultra-BS is a specific example of the more general point that it is easier to spread s*** than to clean it up. It’s impossible to defend against someone who can pull new ad hoc “facts” and arguments out of their … eh, thin air… at will.
Consequently, I’ve become envious of the judicial practice of discovery and sharing with your opponents all the evidence your case will rely on, before the argumentation even begins. It’s hardly a perfect system, but in theory at least, both sides can familiarize themselves with the relevant facts, and evidence not introduced according to the rules, can be dismissed as a matter of procedure. Like a formal version of Hitchens’ Razor.
Outside of the courtrooms, however, official attempts at formalizing our collective knowledge and getting it on record – as, for example, in UN climate reports or official nutrition guidelines – are routinely attacked, politicized and questioned, seemingly without ever being resolved.
Do you think there are analogous things we can do in policy discussions and public discourse to more quickly evaluate credibility (“admissibility”) of evidence and arguments – and quickly and efficiently highlight any lack thereof?
Thanks. That all makes sense.
I don’t really have any good ideas. As such it’s actually a bit comforting to hear I’m not alone in that. I’m not entirely pessimistic, however; it just means I can’t think of any quick fixes or short cuts. I think it’s going to take a lot of work to change the culture, and places like Lesswrong are good starting points for that.
For example, I agree that it’s probably best if we can make it okay for the public to trust experts and institutions again. However, some experts and institutions have made that really hard. And so different institutions need to put in some work and put in place routines – in many cases significant reforms – to earn back trust.
And in order to trust them, the general public needs to learn to change their idea of trust so that it makes allowances for Hanlon’s Razor (or rather Douglas Hubbard’s corollary: “Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by moderately rational individuals following incentives in a complex system.”) I get disheartened when I see the media and its consumers act all outraged and seemingly very surprised by people being people, with flaws.
A bit ironically, considering we’re living through an age with an abundance of communication and information: Alongside institutional reforms, I think there’s a need for some really good, influential communication (infotainment?) that can reach deep into the public attitudes – beyond just college-educated elites and aspirants – and give people new, helpful perspectives. Something that can help create a common language and understanding around concepts like epistemology, public trust and verification, in much the same way the movie The Matrix gave everyone a way to think and talk about Cartesian mind-body split, without using those words (but sans the dystopian, conspiratorial, darkly revolutionary undercurrent, please). Most things I come across that seems to aspire to something like that today is typically overtly moralizing, quite condescending, overly left-leaning, and plain dumb.
But, yeah, the upshot is that I think it’s going to take a lot of hard work to change the culture to something healthier.