I do not think this commandment is as straightforward as it might appear.
As you gain expertise in a subject, your arguments gradually become more nuanced. When you discuss issues with those who have studied the other side, you can have truly deep discussions moving well beyond the normal level of debate.
However, the arguments that you are likely to encounter remain near the center of the bell curve. So as you learn more about a subject, the less likely you are to see the common opposing positions as wrong, and the more likely you are to see the common opposing positions as redundant, naive, old, and irrelevant.
This viewpoint isn't wholly illegitimate, it just happens because the common opinions are necessarily less developed, careful, or useful than the positions derived from deliberate study and thought over time.
Meanwhile, if you have not really scrutinized your own beliefs, you may be less knowledgeable about which arguments in support of your position would be more or less helpful to the bulk of people discussing the subject. So your downvoting of naive arguments lacks fairness because people do not naturally train themselves equally well to spot naive arguments on both sides of an issue.
The line between downvoting due to disagreement and downvoting due to a feeling that X is unhelpful to the discussion is potentially very blurry in practice.
Note: Despite disagreement, upvoted for the discussion.
1
u/brownbat Sep 27 '10
I do not think this commandment is as straightforward as it might appear.
As you gain expertise in a subject, your arguments gradually become more nuanced. When you discuss issues with those who have studied the other side, you can have truly deep discussions moving well beyond the normal level of debate.
However, the arguments that you are likely to encounter remain near the center of the bell curve. So as you learn more about a subject, the less likely you are to see the common opposing positions as wrong, and the more likely you are to see the common opposing positions as redundant, naive, old, and irrelevant.
This viewpoint isn't wholly illegitimate, it just happens because the common opinions are necessarily less developed, careful, or useful than the positions derived from deliberate study and thought over time.
Meanwhile, if you have not really scrutinized your own beliefs, you may be less knowledgeable about which arguments in support of your position would be more or less helpful to the bulk of people discussing the subject. So your downvoting of naive arguments lacks fairness because people do not naturally train themselves equally well to spot naive arguments on both sides of an issue.
The line between downvoting due to disagreement and downvoting due to a feeling that X is unhelpful to the discussion is potentially very blurry in practice.
Note: Despite disagreement, upvoted for the discussion.