Ask HN: What Makes a Winning Argument?

[Dracophoenix]

An argument that is technically victorious would conclusively disprove or render indefensible an opposing claim. But that doesn't make a "winning" argument in the sense of one that wins over other people, even among the most rational individuals. Why is a logical and sound argument not sufficient enough to convince others? What does it take for such an argument to win?

[AnimalMuppet]

"People don't change their minds when they get new facts. They accept new facts when you change their hearts." - Cathy Reizenwitz

But how do you change hearts? Aye, there's the rub...

(I think the quote is too pessimistic, but not wrong. For each of us, there are areas in which we are open to logical argument, and areas in which we are not. For those where we are not, we need heart change before we will listen - really listen - to the arguments that should convince us.)

[Dracophoenix → AnimalMuppet]

Than how does one become better than he already is? How do people ever learn anything new or achieve eureka moments if facts can't change their hearts?

[muzani]

Ethos, pathos, logos. Establish credibility. Appeal to emotion. Then appeal to logic. In that order.

Logic is a way of establishing credibility, but if it's not enough, then your argument can be rejected. I can quote you papers that say ivermectin is effective against COVID, but you would likely reject that despite whatever logic because more credible people (and papers) say otherwise.

Emotion - if someone refuses to believe something, they won't. That's why it matters so much how you say it. If you're insulting someone when arguing, you'll never win.

[dredmorbius]

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_disagreement

[Dracophoenix → dredmorbius]

This describes the technically correct argument that's insufficient to persuade. Even in his essay, PG has this much to say:

"Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? *One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner*[emphasis mine]. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct [n.b. or, for that matter, convincing]. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken."

I would like to know why an objectively correct argument persuades fewer people than one would think it should and what could be done to remedy this weakness without compromising integrity.

[dredmorbius → Dracophoenix]

https://www.tomvmorris.com/blog/2014/12/12/philosophers-and-...

[bananarchist]

Because logic is subjective. Not symbolic logic, of whose ineffectuality you lament, but rather the machine in each person processing information through values and experiences to produce ideas and actions: your logic is not another's. Some may disagree with my calling this "logic," preferring a mathematical approach, but it is a useful definition if the goal is persuasion rather than purity.

If you can learn how a given person's logic works, you can generally feed them the inputs necessary to produce the desired outputs. Some may find this immoral, and they may well be right in certain value systems, but they are also needlessly hamstringing themselves to bask in self-congratulatory failure while their opponents likely have no similar scruples. It's utilitarian, to be sure, but I'd happily mislead people to prevent genocide, just as some readily mislead the public to cause genocide.

A shortcut for working this angle, especially en masse as we see in political debate, is taking advantage of the many identified cognitive biases.