It is complicated. However, I regularly make decisions about who are the experts on a given topic - and the heuristics I use have some value, and don't involve an infinite regress.
The issue is not about the topic the disagreement is about, but over who the disagreement is with. Believing things contrary to the beliefs of a simple majority is commonplace - and not necessarily a sign of problems. Most people are ignorant, stupid and biased.
It makes sense, in informal contexts, to espouse a contrarian view, particularly if it is the opposite to what you actually hold to be true and the issue at hand is frequently disputed. In doing so, one can strengthen the future presentation of one's own real position using information or strategies garnered from your interlocutors' responses (assuming that a contrary discussion elicits more of potential value than one conducted in agreement).
In short: argue against yourself when it doesn't matter in order better to argue for yourself when it does.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
I agree: LW already has a problem because is uses too much idiosyncratic terminology. Please don't make the problem worse: many people reading "ze" in an article will just think you're batshit crazy.
I thought it was a reference to a Dutch obsession with status.