Key quote:<p><i>> your ultimate goal is to establish the credibility of your side so strongly that others' trust in you is not affected by whether what you say is actually true. Establishing credibility is the ultimate Dark Art.</i>
To use a poker analogy, note that Lyrongolem says Ultra-BS only works <i>up until someone calls</i>.<p>This explains why rhetors are fond of enthymemes, and suggests that one defense against the dark arts is to avoid endless reraising rounds.<p>cf <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38794297">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38794297</a><p>> <i>Calculemus!</i> -GWL
This was extremely difficult to read. The takeaway seems to be: Push enough non-factual arguments in a coherent whole, and your position becomes perfectly defensible?
I'm not sure what "public forum" is (he doesn't like and one minute of googling turned up empty), but if we treat debate like a sport then one team winning absolutely does not mean they are right about the topic at hand. Judges must know this or votes would be predetermined by any existing biases. And if they don't have any existing biases then they have no/very-little knowledge of the topic, so of course they'd be vulnerable to stuff like this.<p>This whole piece was kinda weird because he says "I said X but that was obviously dumb and wrong" without further explanation. Which if you bring that up, presumably it opens the door to pure insult. "Oh you actually believe that BS I said? You dumb, no further discussion". Or maybe that's why it's a blog post with his own fake dialogue, so he doesn't have to answer questions he doesn't want to.<p>If we're talking about actual facts, there's no substitute for reality, during conversation that means credibility. I recall hearing a climate change denier saying that it was impossible because CO2 was transparent at all relevant wavelengths. This is false, but we didn't have a book handy and nobody felt like pulling out their smartphones. If you actually care about being right (rather than having a rebuttal ready during a debate), that's why epistemic learned helpless exists [0]. And if something is really important you write down what they said, fact-check it, start looking at other arguments and counter-arguments). Which isn't how structured debate works.<p>[0] <a href="https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learned-helplessness/" rel="nofollow">https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learn...</a>
I have seen an entire book written in this style and the strategy works and I am honestly disgusted that there are people out there who genuinely believe the bullshit in that book and actively fight to spread obvious misinformation e.g. on Wikipedia. Like, every source I have found contradicts what is written there and the source that is supposedly backing up the claim is literally just a mistranslation of an english text.