Handicapping Two Debaters

[David Sklansky]

If two people are debating a subject where there is at least theoretically a correct answer (eg, is there life on Neptune?) it seems to me there are three factors one should use in handicapping who is more likely to be right even if you don't see the debate.

1. Who is more knowledgable about the facts.

2. Who is smarter. More precisely who is more adept at logic and thus less likely to deduce things incorrectly or commit logical fallacies when combining the facts.

3. Is either debater biased toward the position he is arguing? In other words is either debater arguing for something that if true, will benefit him.

If a debater knows more facts, is smarter logically, and is either unbiased or biased against his own side, then one can conclude that he is more likely to be right. (2 out of 3 isn't good enough.)

I understand that it is not always clear who is ahead on each of these three criteria. But if it is determinable, is my conclusion inescapable? Or did I miss something?

[Some Pig]

Whoever is better at emotionally appealing to the masses/the audience will win. This has, is, and will always be the case.

[FortunaMaximus]

#1 and #2 goes towards determining edges in a debate.

#3 may be an inescapable effect of both #1 and #2 and can probably be negated somewhat by having the debaters debate the side of an issue they do not feel an affinity with.

[disjunction]

Bayes rule:

P(Correct | Position) = P(Pos | Correct)*P(Correct)/P(Pos).

So you pretty much got it. As for P(Correct), you may want to estimate on your own what is the correct position before the debate.

[David Sklansky]

"Whoever is better at emotionally appealing to the masses/the audience will win. This has, is, and will always be the case."

I was not talking about who would win the debate. I was talking about who is more likely to be right.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If a debater knows more facts, is smarter logically, and is either unbiased or biased against his own side, then one can conclude that he is more likely to be right. (2 out of 3 isn't good enough.)

I understand that it is not always clear who is ahead on each of these three criteria. But if it is determinable, is my conclusion inescapable? Or did I miss something?

[/ QUOTE ]

X and Y are going to debate an issue which 'could' have a definable answer ... who would I bet on for even money -
One big factor would be creative thinking, of the kind we see in Einstein and Dennett (who has influenced a fresh look in many disciplines}. This strenght has an effect on your #1 'the facts'. In any subject worth debate, the ability to see 'facts' that may apply to it is one of the skills, so it's not like there is a basket labels 'facts for problem A' that each debater will be working from. Y may not even see that factW applies to the problem because he's not seeing it in the same framework as X ( and visa versa).

So, 1 isn't a shared baseline.
#2 is applicable only as it applies to logical construction of the problem. 'Smarter' may not apply directly and may well be swamped by #1 issues.
#3. Bias - a lot of the great discoveries in a field are spurred by bias from various sources. Bias can give a focus to the hypothetical, something to get tested in the debate.
In a strict sense, a debate requires bias .. two opposing claims ( not in the sense you're using it ...something like financial reward or equiv, such as pharma research).

So, your 123 are factors I'd consider, but not as equals and they're missing the intellectual creativity that is often the key to finding the right solution, it's beyond crunching the logic out.. 'insight'.

Whichever criteria we base our bets on, it really depends on the topic. Theoretical, leading-edge topics need a bigger dose of creativity ( think einstein or dennett). Experimental, derivative topics can stick more to normal fact-crunching and the creation of rigorous test methods. It actually takes two different types of personality and that's what you find in the field also.

In the end, it doesn't matter. They will publish their claims, we will see their arguments and they can/should be anonymous. Our pre-debate criteria have zero value after the fact.

luckyme

[David Sklansky]

Insight could have been included in my definition of smarter.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Insight could have been included in my definition of smarter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, both strict logical abiity and creative insight can come under the 'smartness' umbrella but they are very different attributes and to some degree are exclusionary ( stress 'some').

The best theoretical physicists are a different breed of cat than the great experimental ones ( realizing that the fields overlap). If anyone is familiar with MBTI groupings ( never mind their validity), the theorists are mostly INTPs and the experimentalists are mostly INTJs.

Both approaches are very logical ( frustratingly so for others), but they are working on the problem from different perspectives. So to place my bet, I'd need to know what type of problem is being worked on. Theorists come with a 'solution', perhaps in a new framework, experimentalists set up the rigorous tests of it.

luckyme

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
If two people are debating a subject where there is at least theoretically a correct answer (eg, is there life on Neptune?) it seems to me there are three factors one should use in handicapping who is more likely to be right even if you don't see the debate.

1. Who is more knowledgable about the facts.

2. Who is smarter. More precisely who is more adept at logic and thus less likely to deduce things incorrectly or commit logical fallacies when combining the facts.

3. Is either debater biased toward the position he is arguing? In other words is either debater arguing for something that if true, will benefit him.

If a debater knows more facts, is smarter logically, and is either unbiased or biased against his own side, then one can conclude that he is more likely to be right. (2 out of 3 isn't good enough.)

I understand that it is not always clear who is ahead on each of these three criteria. But if it is determinable, is my conclusion inescapable? Or did I miss something?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are using criterion 3 as a proxy for credibility or intellectual honesty. If a debater is intellectually honest, it doesn't matter whether he benefits from advancing a particular position. I don't doubt that it is a decent practical proxy, but logically, I don't think one should disbelieve an educated, intelligent, intellectually honest debater simply because his conclusion benefits him personally.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

3. Is either debater biased toward the position he is arguing? In other words is either debater arguing for something that if true, will benefit him


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the least important, often even irrelevant, unless the debater is testifying as well as arguing.

To paraphrase Stephen King, it is the argument, not he who makes it.