Issues and Personalities

Hopefully we’re pretty much done with the Loser’s Compromise series. I think it’s gone pretty well, and a big part of the reason for that is that this series focuses entirely on the issues, rather than on personalities. I think that’s a good strategy, for a number of reasons.

Let’s recap. In “Victoria and Holmes,” we looked at how the Loser’s Compromise worked, and why it would not be an advantage to anyone who was arguing a point that was clearly supported by the evidence. When the facts are on your side already, there’s no need to appeal to the idea that all points of view can be seen as equally consistent with the facts. Thus, the Loser’s Compromise appeals to us primarily when the evidence is not in our favor. Hence the name.

In “A Quick Preview,” we mentioned the Loser’s Compromise in passing, noting that the Myth Hypothesis is already 100% consistent with the verifiable evidence, and therefore the best a competing hypothesis could hope for is to predict the exact same consequences as the Myth Hypothesis. Anything less, and the Myth Hypothesis is the one best supported by the evidence. Under the circumstances, it would be easy to understand the temptation to raise a Loser’s Compromise in defense against the superior consistency of the Myth Hypothesis.

In “The Loser’s Compromise (cont),” we explored the further ramifications of the Loser’s Compromise, and how it makes us “losers” by causing us to lose the ability to distinguish between false alternatives and the true one. Indeed, the whole point of the Loser’s Compromise is to blur the distinction between true conclusions and false ones so as to protect us from having our false beliefs exposed as error, defending our pride at the expense of our intellectual integrity.

Why ‘Loser’s’ Compromise?” explored the difference between a laudable open-mindedness that admits its own fallibility, and the Loser’s Compromise, which seeks to avoid acknowledging its mistakes. Honest inquirers admit the possibility that new information might change their conclusions, but they still distinguish between conclusions that are consistent with the evidence and those that aren’t. The Loser’s Compromise, by contrast, seeks to avoid discovering which conclusions are most consistent with the truth, so as to avoid being proven wrong. That’s the exact opposite of an open-minded, skeptical admission of fallibility.

Our unicorn overlords” looked a specific example of creating a situation where two conflicting hypotheses predicted the exact same real-world consequences (of which there are a huge number by the way: virtually all of the worlds political developments throughout history!). By taking a step away from the specific topic of Myth Hypothesis versus Gospel Hypothesis, it demonstrated with a bit more objectivity the manner in which the Loser’s Compromise really offers no justification for believing in powerful, invisible beings.

And most recently, “How great a loss!” pointed out that, fundamentally, the Loser’s Compromise is necessarily a self-deception, since conflicting hypotheses can only be equally (in)consistent with the truth if they are both false. Granted, lack of information can sometimes produce an inability to determine which hypothesis is most consistent with the facts (in which case agnosticism is the only justified conclusion), but where the available information is readily available, and is clearly more consistent with one hypothesis than another, it is mere self-deception to pretend to be unable to reach a reasonable determination of the truth.

Seven posts, and none of them have been attacks on any one person. I have focused on the issues themselves, and on the reasons why a Loser’s Compromise is a bad idea. And that’s a tremendous advantage for my case. If I had tried to attack someone personally, and to prove that they were guilty of promoting a Loser’s Compromise, I would have set myself up for failure, because the person I attacked would only need to deny that they believed in any Loser’s Compromise. The burden of proof would be on me to establish someone’s guilt, to prove their thoughts in contradiction of their claims, and that’s a difficult burden to bear. Plus, even if I won, what would be the point? One person would be embarrassed, and 50 years from now (or even 10, or 2), who would care?

It is so much better to focus on the issues, because if someone comes along and says, “I reject the idea that the evidence could support some conflicting hypothesis as well as it supports the Myth Hypothesis,” then I haven’t lost an argument and/or made an enemy, I’ve added one more to the number of people who reject the Loser’s Compromise. That’s a win for both of us, because we’ve both rejected a flawed idea that impedes the search for truth.

Granted, there may be some out there who do indeed want to promote the Loser’s Compromise (for instance, by arguing that some other hypothesis is just as consistent with the real-world facts as the Myth Hypothesis, and is therefore “justified” whether or not it is true). And granted, my posts on the Loser’s Compromise may indeed make such people very uncomfortable. Good. Embracing flawed ideas and self-deceptions should make us uncomfortable. It should bother us so much that we can no longer continue defending the errors in our thinking. Ideally, it should drive us to reconsider our assumptions, and seek out new beliefs with a stronger foundation in real-world fact.

A hundred years from now, it won’t matter whether one person “scored a point” against some other luckless individual. But the difference between sound thinking and self-deception will still matter. People will come and people will go, but ideas and their consequences will endure—for good (sound thinking) or ill (self-deception). And that’s why it’s so satisfying to focus on the issues, rather than on petty personal squabbles.

 
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
Posted in Unapologetics. 6 Comments »

6 Responses to “Issues and Personalities”

  1. John Morales Says:

    As you say, the posts stand as reference material as you establish your case.

    [meta]
    If I may descend into the vernacular, Deacon, I’d like to note you have a hell of a work ethic, for something that is clearly your avocation. :)

    I’ve certainly been spending time here, I’m just happy you don’t charge by the hour…

  2. cl Says:

    DD,

    By taking a step away from the specific topic of Myth Hypothesis versus Gospel Hypothesis, it demonstrated with a bit more objectivity the manner in which the Loser’s Compromise really offers no justification for believing in powerful, invisible beings.

    IMO, the AH/UH was an insufficient example to illustrate the principle. Of course it’s unreasonable to make truth claims on a single pair of identical consequences (or two), and such weakens provisional belief as well. Still, as I noted and John Morales agreed, the AH/UH is nothing like the GH/MH in predictive power or usefulness. You compared a strawberry to a flat of strawberries in that case.

    Seven posts, and none of them have been attacks on any one person. …If I had tried to attack someone personally, and to prove that they were guilty of promoting a Loser’s Compromise, I would have set myself up for failure, because the person I attacked would only need to deny that they believed in any Loser’s Compromise. The burden of proof would be on me to establish someone’s guilt, to prove their thoughts in contradiction of their claims, and that’s a difficult burden to bear.

    Am I the only person here who got the idea DD’s Loser’s Compromise posts were aimed at me? I noted that DD never once typed “cl embraces the LC,” but will anyone really deny the clear implication of DD’s posts? As I said, “Loser” denotes the person and not the issue – for one – and for two – why is it that in your LC posts, you referred to your own perceptions of CL’s – and only CL’s – arguments? And this may be a stretch, but – LC? CL?

    It is so much better to focus on the issues, because if someone comes along and says, “I reject the idea that the evidence could support some conflicting hypothesis as well as it supports the Myth Hypothesis,” then I haven’t lost an argument and/or made an enemy, I’ve added one more to the number of people who reject the Loser’s Compromise.

    While I agree, and you can add me to the list of people who reject the LC, don’t you think you should have thought about not wanting to make an enemy before you titled the compromise thusly and affixed it exclusively to a single individual’s statements the day after they made them? If you were aiming it at me – which I believe you were on account of the evidence – don’t you honestly believe there’s a better way to handle this than denial?

    Granted, there may be some out there who do indeed want to promote the Loser’s Compromise (for instance, by arguing that some other hypothesis is just as consistent with the real-world facts as the Myth Hypothesis, and is therefore “justified” whether or not it is true).

    If we want to avoid this in the near-future, I think you should make a distinction here: I understood the LC as contriving an hypothesis to fit the evidence when it really doesn’t. Isn’t contriving an hypothesis to fit evidence when it doesn’t different than presenting a second hypothesis that actually fits all currently available evidence with zero contriving?

  3. Deacon Duncan Says:

    cl—

    So let me see if I’m following you here. You’re certain that I aimed the Loser’s Compromise discussion at you because I clearly addressed claims that you do not hold and have not argued on this blog. Is that correct?

    As for the term “Loser,” I’ve repeatedly pointed out precisely what it is that the Loser’s Compromise causes us to lose, and so far no one has disputed that depriving ourselves of the ability to tell truth from lies would indeed be a loss, so I really don’t see the need to go hunting for some alternate interpretation to put on the term.

    As for contrived hypotheses, I’ve already discussed the problem with trying to claim that two contradictory hypotheses are both equally consistent with the real-world truth, so yes, any attempt to make a contradictory hypothesis predict the same results is indeed contrived. The nature of rationalization is such that it won’t seem contrived to the person doing the contriving, but the fallacious nature of the attempt will be seen in the conflicts and inconsistencies that inevitably follow such a futile attempt.

    We’ll discuss the Unicorn Hypothesis in a future post.

  4. cl Says:

    So let me see if I’m following you here. You’re certain that I aimed the Loser’s Compromise discussion at you because I clearly addressed claims that you do not hold and have not argued on this blog. Is that correct?

    No. I believe the evidence indicates you aimed the LC at me because you addressed claims I do not hold that you thought and implied I argued on this blog.

    As for contrived hypotheses, I’ve already discussed the problem with trying to claim that two contradictory hypotheses are both equally consistent with the real-world truth, so yes, any attempt to make a contradictory hypothesis predict the same results is indeed contrived.

    That’s not an answer to the question I asked. The question I asked specifically omitted the attempt to make a contradictory hypothesis predict the same results part of your response.

  5. Deacon Duncan Says:

    [Moved to the forums.]

    (Re-reading my comment, I can’t deny that I would have moved anyone else’s post that took that tone, so…)

  6. Deacon Duncan Says:

    Let me try this again, with a little more manners.

    you addressed claims I do not hold that you thought and implied I argued on this blog.

    The topic I addressed is a topic worth addressing because it is extremely widespread these days, as even many Christian authors and preachers will tell you. Even if you were correct in your guess about my beliefs (which you are not), the most you have the right to charge me with would be exercising discretion, resisting the temptation to turn it into a personal issue, and focusing my entire presentation on the inherent flaws in the broader issue itself. The “implications” are up to the reader—let each person’s conscience be their own judge.

    The question I asked specifically omitted the attempt to make a contradictory hypothesis predict the same results part of your response.

    If the second hypothesis is not inconsistent with the first, then it is not really an alternative hypothesis, but merely an affirmation, or rephrasing, of the first. You may have thought you were omitting the part about a contradictory hypothesis producing the same consequences, but “a second hypothesis that actually fits all currently available evidence” has to contradict the first hypothesis in some way in order to be different enough to be a genuine second hypothesis. Hence the inevitable contrivance that results from trying to make the distinct alternative produce the same consequences.