>>89645813Scott Adams says that the side that is more persuasive is inevitably the winner (see:Trump)
He defines persuasion in a very deceitful and specific way (see: "It is unknowable")
By disregarding that some things can be decided independently of whether they're persuasive or not, he is being even more deceitful.
For example, "you can't know if a fetus is alive, therefore you're risking killing a baby" is persuasive, so abortion needs to be restricted. Or, "you can't know if climate change is really happening, so policies designed to prevent it need to be discarded." Make something unknowable, then defend the opposite position, preferably using appeals to emotion.
On top of that, if he's ever wrong, he can simply say (and he does say) that he was simply pressured into holding the wrong opinion. ("I believe in climate change because it would harm my career to profess otherwise, wink wink".)
This is very dishonest, deceitful behavior, but Scott Adams professes that it's right because the argument that is more persuasive will eventually win out, regardless of whether or not it's correct.
