Scott argues that projects attempting to "solve debate" through argument mapping or similar technologies are fundamentally doomed because real arguments don't work like logical syllogisms, people don't actually want structured debates, and there's no evidence this approach has ever worked. Longer summary

Scott explains why he consistently rejects grant applications for projects aimed at improving online debates through argument mapping or similar technologies. He outlines several fundamental problems: real arguments don't decompose into simple logical premises and conclusions as these tools assume; arguments rarely hinge on simple factual errors or logical fallacies but on different weightings of evidence; these platforms face an impossible bootstrapping problem since people don't actually want structured debates (they want to express opinions and be agreed with); and unlike dating apps, there's no historical precedent for this type of technology working over thousands of years of human argumentation. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that true logical debate, rarely attempted, could be more effective in changing minds than commonly believed, and is necessary for long-term progress in distinguishing truth from falsehood. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques two articles arguing that facts and logic are ineffective in changing people's minds, especially regarding political issues. He contends that true debate, following specific conditions he outlines, is rarely attempted and could be more effective than assumed. He suggests that collaborative truth-seeking and adversarial collaborations could be powerful tools for the media. Alexander argues that logical debate is an asymmetric weapon favoring truth, unlike rhetoric or violence which can be used equally by all sides. He concludes that while improving debate quality is a slow process, it's necessary for long-term progress in distinguishing truth from falsehood. Shorter summary