Whick accidentally demonstrated why people think Pisco is bad faith

There was a pretty incredible self own during the pisco v north debate yesterday that perfectly illustrates why Pisco has this reputation.

At 6:16 Whick argues that if Pisco challenges a descriptive claim, its reasonable to conclude he also disagrees with the broader position. Not just that it makes that conclusion slightly more likely, but that you are actually justified in believing it. We can’t wait for certainty after all.

Pisco disagrees. Just because some evidence nudges you toward a conclusion doesn’t mean you have enough evidence to actually believe it, especially not with any confidence.

Then TWO MINUTES LATER at 6:18 Whick notices his own chat assuming he disagrees with Pisco just because he’s arguing against him. Whick finds this funny and interesting.

Dude, you JUST spent several minutes defending this exact reasoning. Your own chat is applying your standard to you and somehow you don’t recognize it.

Two caveats. Maybe Whick deliberately did this to subtly correct himself. Seems unlikely but possible.

Also maybe chat was intentionally exposing his hypocrisy. If that was you, please speak up because thats hilarious.

But this gets at something much bigger about Pisco’s reputation.

Throughout the debate people keep acknowledging that Pisco is perceived as bad faith, even when they can’t demonstrate actual bad faith. North ultimately admits he didn’t have sufficient evidence.

The biggest cause is probably a big streamer calling Pisco bad faith without demonstrating it, and his community repeating it.

But the second cause is more interesting, and Whick just demonstrated it.

Most people form confident conclusions based on very little evidence. A small nudge in probability becomes a belief they treat as established fact.

Then Pisco comes along and asks whether the evidence actually justifies that confidence.

And people HATE it.

Instead of reconsidering their conclusions, they get frustrated that Pisco won’t just accept what seems obvious to them. He comes across as pedantic, argumentative and bad faith because he refuses to make the same unjustified leaps everyone else makes.

Pisco even acknowledges that this isn’t how normal conversations work.

And thats exactly the problem. Normal conversations are full of unjustified confidence. Pisco shouldn’t change his approach to accommodate that.

I want politicians to compromise because they need votes. I don’t need Pisco to win a popularity contest. I watch Pisco because he consistently demands that confidence match the evidence, including his own.