I'm all for Miller's law, but then if the site accepts it this law to be enforceable, I'll refer posters to this law, those posters who are pissed off with me for sticking to my guns on wording, and the law shalt prevail. — god must be atheist
This way any statement is necessary for acceptance for truthfulness, since human imagination is endless. — god must be atheist
Which could be why we need the law. We need to start somewhere, and someone's statement might be the starting-point. We would first need; to understand what the person is saying. Yes, we may make "first-hand" judgements of a statement, but that generally doesn't mean that judgement is true. You would need additional information - but you may not get it, if you make instant judgement of what you first perceive. — Don Wade
Perhaps it would be useful in allowing us to understand something about the person telling us something (e.g., he's an idiot, under the influence) but not the statement being made. — Ciceronianus the White
In other words, if you think a topic is stupid or beneath you, then don't even engage in it, not even to tell someone you think as much. If you truly have a disagreement, comment, question, or just want to engage in productive dialogue, that is when you participate. — schopenhauer1
I would suggest that we already follow the idea of miller's Law, or at least, the majority of us do. We, generally, do not read an op and instantly assume it is a lie, or seek only to disprove it as false, although I do recognize that frequently we do point out flaws, or disagree with a posted opinion, not out of an assumption that the other is based on an untruth, but that we may have found a flaw in the logic. This, to me, is healthy and appropriate debate and discussion of a topic. Most of us do this. A few respond with insults rather than healthy debate, but that is true for all discussions, sometimes you just have to write off a response. — Book273
Yep, though it's more often called the principle of charity in a philosophical context. — Pfhorrest
Failure to to apply it is pretty rampant here, as with most everywhere. — Pfhorrest
And also for those of us who have been here for years, every thread, especially started by someone new, ought to be approached as if you yourself were talking about it for the first time and explain your reasoning clearly. — ssu
This is a slippery slope as we then make further conclusions and respond in ways that confuse or annoy the other people (who also do the same thing back to us). A particularly problematic part of this is when we attribute causes and characteristics, assuming they are saying or doing things for intrinsically personal reasons, but which are in fact false.
Miller's Law is effectively used by those who want to avoid the truth as they deliberately answer a question truthfully but in a way that deceives.
Did you punch him?
No I did not punch him. (actually they karate-chopped him).
The point to remember here is to be careful in your questioning and ensure you get the full picture. A clue in the statement above is that a truthful person is more likely to say just 'No', whilst the deceiver carefully parrots back the 'punch' phrase to ensure the truth of their statement is clear. — Don Wade
A good example. How do you think I would perceive your own statement? It seems antagonistic...but is it? I need to know more before I delete it, or ignore it. This, to me, is communication - not a rumble. — Don Wade
What have been left off the list below are the following persuasive techniques commonly used to influence others and to cause errors in reasoning: apple polishing, using propaganda techniques, ridiculing, being sarcastic, selecting terms with strong negative or positive associations, using innuendo, and weasling. All of the techniques are worth knowing about if one wants to reason well. — https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
This _is_ interpreting them. — baker
When discussing the dog-eat-dog nature of life, only a simpleton would be indiscriminately charitable, or goodwilled.Yep, though it's more often called the principle of charity in a philosophical context.
Failure to to apply it is pretty rampant here, as with most everywhere. — Pfhorrest
it is necessary for you to assume the person is being truthful, then imagine what could be true about it. — javi2541997
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.