posted
There. I said it. It's somehow, ridiculously, become unpopular in America to say it, but I firmly believe it is axiomatically true. If I believe something, then I believe that people who do not believe it are incorrect.
Furthermore,
There is a cause for every event.
Somebody believing something incorrect is an event. ______
Therefore, there is a cause for people believing incorrect things.
From this result and my first axiom, I can then say,
For everything I believe that is not universally accepted, I believe that something causes people to reach false conclusions about it.
An attempt at an exhaustive list of possible causes:
Incomplete or faulty information Psychological problems Poor, or lazily applied, reasoning skills They really agree with me, but are lying
I find the need to lecture people on this after I'm in, or witness, this conversation:
quote: A: I believe x. B: Many people do not believe x. How do you resolve this contradiction? A: They are incorrect. B: But this implies that those many people are flawed in some way. You are blanket-insulting a group of people that you do not belong to, which is offensive to me and indicates that you are not fit to participate in civil discourse. A: Well, here's phenomenon y. Couldn't this show why people could believe x, even if it's not true? B: More insults--you're getting more specific, but that just makes it more offensive. This is more evidence that you are not fit to participate in civil discourse.
Don't be person B.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Incomplete or faulty information Psychological problems Poor, or lazily applied, reasoning skills They really agree with me, but are lying
You're missing one; it's possible that these apply to you and that you are wrong.
Aside from that, I don't think you can make this statement this completely. In some cases, this is true. In many cases there are many point of view, caused by many different sources of information. Only with complete understanding of every available piece of information about something, (which is impossible to get, unless you are a being such as God) you cannot make an absolute statement about such things.
I think this. I cannot say I am right and that you are wrong because for all I know, you are an omnicient being who does know everything there is to know.
posted
It's not so much a matter not being open to being wrong, it's moreso being able to argue your point with the belief that the other person is wrong. Sure, nobody's perfect, but if you're willing to argue a point that you believe to be true against someone who disagrees, you have to assume that the other person is wrong.
Otherwise, you lose credibility if you have to precede an argument, unsaid or vocal, with "I may be wrong..."
The critial thing to remember is being able to admit that you're wrong when you're proven wrong in the argument.
posted
Honore, you are of course entirely right: either you're stupid or misinformed, or the person disagreeing with you is.
However, many of us have found that, in our experience, it is easier, more pleasant, and more effective to discuss issues with people without calling them stupid or uninformed. This sometimes involves being a little disingenuous, which some people consider slimy and untrustworthy; to these people, the word "diplomatic" is considered an insult.
Let me suggest something, however: that even if the person you disagree is in fact stupid, emotionally imbalanced, or misinformed, you will not only have more success convincing him of your argument but will have more success convincing the audience of your argument, leaving aside the issue of your technical rightness, if you do not couch your assessment of the situation in those terms.
Frankly, I consider this an essential people skill. I am often aghast when I meet people who do not have it, or do not recognize why it is essential. But only rarely do I tell people who lack it that they should have it, because it tends to make them defensive and leads to conversations in which they attempt to argue that being "right" and speaking the "truth" is more important than making someone else feel good; as I'm unconvinced that such arguments ever go anywhere, I'd like to ask you to avoid that pitfall. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Or you could both be stupid and misinformed and neither of you are right and there's a third person who's actually right. Or perhaps there's a fourth... The possibilities are endless.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When two people agree about the relevant facts and the likely effects of a possible course of action, but disagree about whether that action is desirable based on the equivalent of first moral principles, is the one who is wrong "stupid" or "misinformed"?
If the latter, where can he get the information necessary to correct this?
posted
If I disagree with you on anything, you can safely assume the following: 1. I think you are wrong 2. I think you could be right 3. I think I could be wrong 4. I don't think I am wrong 5. I don't think either of us are stupid, regardless 6. I think we both can probably figure out which of us is right and which of us is wrong if we discuss it long enough, with the intention to find the truth
posted
IMO, Dag, if you disagree about principles taken a priori, you cannot have a truly authoritative conversation until those principles in disagreement cease to be a priori, unless the goal of that conversation is to determine which points of disagreement are indeed caused by divergent principles.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, you never know the real truth.
The only way you see the real truth, is the way you, with your knowledge, see it affecting you; you never see more than very few aspects.
Science, religion or ancient philosophies; they each show you only one aspect, and the one you truly connect to you try to understand better during your whole life.
If you dedicate your whole life to Newtonian physics you might "discover" more "truth", but it won't necessarily apply for various topics in sociology. Moreover, if you study brain biology, you might be an expert and great analyst/theorist of psychology, but you won't be an expert on the history of Cantonese language development.
What I'm saying by this is that Cantonese might look at you as an ignorant person in the Cantonese language, but you will use your sociology to still remain "popular". (For all axiom-related complaints, an AutoReply: Please excuse me!)
To be more theoretical, the real truth, call it the Buddha if you like (to my knowledge of Buddhism), is never going to be revealed to a single human entirely, you can only step upon your predecessors' backs and get a bigger reflection; but unless an adolescent, and the younger the better, studies all knowledge, can he/she become a real truth-spotter.
Quantum Mechanic fundamentals - the more general you are, the less you know specifically; the more you know specifically, the less general you are.
I'm not exactly trying to justify insulting people. I'm arguing that believing anything carries with it an implicit insult, and pointing out the implicit insult does not constitute a refutation, or even an argument.
When I see these things said, they are usually examples of the fallacy I'm talking about. Sometimes, context can justify them.
"Please don't disparage the Mormon faith just because you don't share it."
"I can't stand the Mormons who are so self-righteous and smug because they think they know the only true answer."
"I don't think you should be calling half the population of the United States stupid, ignorant, or deluded."
"I don't think you should be calling half the population of the United States elitist, out-of-touch, or arrogant."
[/blanket]
Tres, how can you justify assumption 5?
Noemon, yes. I didn't expect this thread to get so many replies while I was in the shower, for example. This came from ignorance and stupidity on my part. Presumably you have a followup?
TomD, are you saying that Socrates "lacked an essential skill?" Are you "aghast" at him? Don't disrespect Socrates!
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
TomD, so Socrates deserved what he got because he was so much less enlightened than you? I wish I were as clever as you: then I'd never get into trouble and everybody would love everything I said.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Socrates most certainly did not deserve to be sentenced to death for corrupting the youth of Athens. He is, however, a good example of the value of nuance.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, as far as I know Socrates did not call people stupid, emotionally unbalanced, or misinformed.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread makes me want to quote Weird Al.
So, I will.
quote:Everything you know is wrong Black is white, up is down and short is long And everything you thought was just so important doesn't matter Everything you know is wrong Just forget the words and sing along All you need to understand is Everything you know is wrong.
posted
The last of those three is somewhat arguable, but I think for the most part he settled for implying they were misinformed, usually letting them argue against themselves at the prompting of his questions.
edit: to make clear, this was a reply to my own previous post.
posted
I think the point here is that every person in an argument honestly believes they are right without any possibility of being wrong. As a result, some people tend to make snide remarks in an effort to bat away another person's arguments. I think what Honore is trying to say is that is a stupid thing to do. Of course, I may be wrong Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I try very hard not to use words like "stupid" or "misinformed" when talking with people who disagree with me.
I much prefer to use the terms "liar" and "asshole." But I've recently found that doesn't work so well, so I may have to return to terms like "stupid" and "misinformed."
But in general, HonoreDB, I find that I must completely disagree with your premise. Therefore, there must be something wrong with you. Perhaps we can work this out (or, in other words, find a way in which you can change your mind and agree with me).
In all seriousness, though, it ain't easy being wrong. If you're wrong on this one thing, who's to say you haven't been wrong on everything else?
This happens a lot on both sides of political arguments (those being oh, so popular these days). If Bush was wrong on this, then he must be wrong on everything else (how can you trust him?!). And the same goes for Kerry.
Are we ready to admit that a person might be wrong on one (or more) things, but right on others? Can the facts and the truth stand by itself? Are they subject to the casting of subtle ad-hominem aspersions?
(Aspersions? Who talks like that?)
John Howard brings up an interesring point, in that the truth may be a larger thing than any of us (individually) can grasp at once.
It's like a great diamond--as we look through the facets at the underlying, internal truth, our perceptions are constantly refracted and colored.
It's like the five blind men and the elephant:
"It is a stick!" "It is a snake!" "It is a great tree trunk!" "It is the side of a great mountain!" "It is a snake! EEEUgh! It is not a snake!"
Or something like that.
[edited because you can't spell "right" "wright"--it would just be rong]
posted
I don't know. In a sense I believe some people who disagree with me are wrong, but this is only when I have empirical evidence to back up my opinions. The things I find myself arguing more about are based on faith or opinion, so right and wrong are useless concepts.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a deterministic universe, given sufficient knowledge, one would be able to determine whether your team would succeed in going for the touchdown. If the team is going to succeed, then those who are arguing for going for it are right, and the others are underinformed (incomplete information as my original post puts it).
In a quantum indeterminate universe, given sufficient knowledge, one would still be able to determine the odds whether your team would succeed in going for the touchdown, and the odds of them making the field goal and going on to win in overtime. Whoever is arguing for the outcome that will have worse odds is underinformed.
I don't know of any model that says that an omniscient observer of the present can't know the probability distribution of the future. Under that model, I guess there would be no such thing as truth in some cases.
A seperate thought: in trying to reconcile belief A and belief B, I don't need to question beliefs A and B. That's a seperate task. So if I'm trying to reconcile my belief in faeries with my belief that most people don't profess to believe in faeries, it's not part of my job to consider the possibility that faeries don't exist. If I FAIL to come up with a satisfactory explanation for most people not professing belief in faeries, THEN I should reconsider my two assumptions.
All five blind men are wrong. When you call it an elephant, you're admitting that there is a correct way of describing it that comes from superior vision.
TomD, will you not concede that you are insulting Socrates just a little by saying people "should" be tactful? My point in bringing him up is that if I frame the issue just so, you have to either insult someone or back down.
Fugu, Socrates called people bad and/or lazy reasoners. I'm not really interested in defending the use of loaded words like ignorant or stupid. In my original post, I used more value-neutral terms.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think its pretty clear that Socrates certainly could have been more tactful if your conception of him is accurate, and I'm not quite sure why you're maintaining he's a paragon of virtue.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Edited to clarify and to respond to below and to avoid making my 500th post: It depends how you define "insult." I'm saying a bunch of fairly self-evident stuff here (evident to most people, anyway: I respect the people who are challenging the basic tautology as I certainly can't prove them wrong). I'm trying to say that people shouldn't be offended if I say or imply that I have some theory as to why they disagree with me.
posted
"I'm trying to say that people shouldn't be offended if I say or imply that I have some theory as to why they disagree with me."
Oh, I know. But here's the thing: you don't get to decide whether people get offended or not. You really don't. No matter how reasonable you think you are, no matter how logical your statements, the person who ultimately decides whether you're being offensive is the person you're talking to, not you.
So if you know that speculating on someone else's motivation, education, and/or comprehension is likely to be seen as insulting -- even if you think their lacks are self-evident and a matter of fact -- then you should take that into consideration before doing it, if you do not in fact wish them to be insulted.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. If someone SHOULDN'T get offended when you say something, it's okay to say it, even if you do offend them. They need to learn to not be offended at things that shouldn't offend them. It's only when something you say actually merits offense that you should refrain from saying it.
Adopting a policy of never offending anyone (even when they shouldn't be offended by what you are saying) is a bad thing, because many things that need to be said do not get said under such a policy - and people are encouraged to continuing being offended by things that merit no offensive. It doesn't just limit your own speech - it harms society by contributing to extreme political correctness.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I'm trying to say that people shouldn't be offended if I say or imply that I have some theory as to why they disagree with me."
So were this statement made, you would have no reason to get offended?
quote:You wouldn't say that if you didn't often say or imply the wrong theory as to why your listeners disagree with you. This is clearly a rule designed to allow you to avoid the consequences of your behavior.
posted
"I disagree. If someone SHOULDN'T get offended when you say something, it's okay to say it, even if you do offend them."
Nowhere did I say it was wrong to offend people. I said it was merely impossible to tell them not to be offended.
Clearly, if there is a way to word an objection so as to not cause offense, that would generally be the preferred method. If, however, the objection itself would cause offense, then one must decide whether the objection is worth the offense -- not simply insist, over and over again, that the person you've offended has no right to feel that way.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
