I think that is is interesting to listen to Milo Yiannopoulos and Ben Shapiro on YouTube. They are both excellent debaters, Milo in particular is charismatic and persuasive, Ben is obnoxious but also persuasive. Sometimes they will argue based on numbers and facts, sometimes they will discredit or ridicule their opponents personally, sometimes they appeal to emotion and faith. I find it interesting to listen to them and I could be persuaded by them except that use facts to bolster their arguments when the facts support what they want to say and discredit or ridicule facts which oppose what they want to say. They are both ideologically driven and such skilled debaters that it would be easy to buy into their story. I am sure I would lose a debate with either of them. Does that make them right and me wrong? They probably think that is the case, that winning a debate is a win for truth. However I have to disagree. Scientific truth is the only really reliable narrative as philosophers of knowledge have accepted for a long time. It adapts and changes and improves and does address the question ‘how do I know that I know?’. Skilled debaters like Milo and Ben are popular and convincing but they unfortunately start from a position of believing something and conflate that with knowing something. Sometimes they are quite correct but they are doomed by their own self-belief to be often wrong. The only way to truth is through reason and reason is something they only use as a tool when it is suits their purposes.
Liam Mor's Blog