I guess we must all deal with the situation of being thought of as an unreasonable person by at least a few people. Perhaps only because unreasonable people unreasonably think others are being unreasonable. Usually, all parties are convinced that it's not them. It's a confusing situation that should be handled with care or humour.

Is it possible that there are some people who try to be reasonable, but are inescapably unreasonable, at least in some respect? — S

Yes, as evidenced by the many mistakes people, including very smart people, have made in the history of philosophy.

Human minds are not perfect reasoning machines.

I suppose this is a skill. A skill that some people just lack, and have real trouble picking up. — S

The skill is not using reason, which everyone with working mental faculties is capable of. The skill is questioning yourself and your biases.

In light of your recent behaviour in your thread on idealism, perhaps a little self-reflection might be helpful.

For example, someone who tries over and over again to present a valid argument against someone else, but keeps begging the question over and over again, without realising it, and even when this is identified and explained over and over again, and even though there is information available on the internet which explains this fallacy, the person is inescapably stuck in the pattern of behaviour of committing the fallacy over and over again. Maybe they even understand the fallacy, and could tell you what it is upon request. — S

Maybe because too many don't even have a basic understanding of philosophy or dialectic procedures? I do however find that for a forum that is open to all and that features discussions on religion and politics, it never really goes off into mindless-rant-closed-threads-directions. That's a positive thing I guess.

Personally, I find there to be a bit too much religious apologist-rants. Some believer who read Aquinas or Kalam-arguments only and then rants of without any logical reasoning at all. "First cause"-arguments keep popping up like weed and it doesn't matter how much you point out fallacies and flaws, they keep going, even though the likelihood of them "proving Gods existence" after thousands of years of philosophy, in an age of strict scientific methods, is close to zero, especially on a philosophy forum without any papers published at all.

I know there's nothing to be done about that, but it's clogging the system and you need to wade through them to reach other discussions.

Is there a way to block some sections off? Like, if I don't want to see threads posted in "Philosophy of religion" at the top? Also, all the "first cause" arguments should go into that section, Metaphysics/Epistemology is at the moment a dumping ground for first cause-arguments.

Another thing is that I think new members shouldn't be able to post subjects until they have at least 20-30 posts. I've seen this on other forums and it works great, it settles them into the forum and keeps trolls out.

Maybe this forum needs a scoring system? Don't know how that would look like, but if someone is writing proper posts, answers with respect to the argument and keep their fallacies down you could invisibly "like" their post. Even if that post is against your point, most people in here know when they get proper feedback/counterargument and when they get a nutcase on their tail.

With that, those with a higher score shows as "respected member" or "quality member" or something. I guess we could make a whole argument-discussion out of such a system, but it would help distinguish between those who time after time just rant nonsense and those who come here for a proper philosophical discussion.

Is it possible that there are some people who try to be reasonable, but are inescapably unreasonable, at least in some respect? — S

Yes, because even if someone is guided by fear or wishful thinking, they don't see what guides them but believe that their flawed arguments are "good enough".

Noone, except for philosophers and most scientists want to know that their arguments are bad. Everyone wants to think of themselves as reasonable people.

But a philospher listen and analyses if someone points out a flaw, or should be able to do so as they put truth higher than being right themselves.

They might even be happy if they learn or upgrade their thinking.

A normal person, will instead put being right over truth if truth means that they have to change the way they understand the world into a way that is more uncomfortable than their current view of the world.

Changing the way you think the world works is extremely difficult for some if it means that they have been wrong for a long time or that they will think differently than everyone around them.

Such situation just completely blocks the mind in many grownups and they simply refuse to accept arguments that leads to such conclusions.

...when should you give up trying? What if, for example, you had spent hours and hours of your own time, without pay? — S

A bit like 'voluntary discomfort' ?
Time, patience and energy spent to seeming no avail. But other people might just be following the discussion and get something from it. Including yourself.

You can give up any time. When you've had enough. Or realise that the pattern of behaviour is unlikely to change.
A matter of judgement.
But you know that, doncha ? Were you just letting off steam ?
Peace :pray:
Joy :sparkle:
and Love :love:

Yes, as evidenced by the many mistakes people, including very smart people, have made in the history of philosophy. — Echarmion

In history, it's understandable that there's been flawed thinking because as science evolved, so did how we do rational and reasonable arguments. The thing that I don't understand is why so many who discuss philosophy won't adhere to current methods of dialectics. It's like they ignore the last 150 years of development in how to do a rational argument and when they hear counter-arguments they don't evolve their argument, just point out that they are right because [insert fallacy here].

Human minds are not perfect reasoning machines. — Echarmion

Fallacy and bias-knowledge is extremely low within the general public and that's understandable, but on a philosophy forum, it's mind-boggling.

Mods should put a pin to the top of this forum with a list of fallacies and biases and prompt people to keep them in mind.

Maybe this forum needs a scoring system? Don't know how that would look like, but if someone is writing proper posts, answers with respect to the argument and keep their fallacies down you could invisibly "like" their post. Even if that post is against your point, most people in here know when they get proper feedback/counterargument and when they get a nutcase on their tail.

With that, those with a higher score shows as "respected member" or "quality member" or something. I guess we could make a whole argument-discussion out of such a system, but it would help distinguish between those who time after time just rant nonsense and those who come here for a proper philosophical discussion. — Christoffer

We used to have this feature but we voted to remove it.

What was the reason? I understand that this could be abused and get out of hand, but maybe a form that would is different would work. But if there are good reasons/experiences not to, I understand.

In history, it's understandable that there's been flawed thinking because as science evolved, so did how we do rational and reasonable arguments. — Christoffer

The history of philosophy is not a straight line though. There is no equivalent to the scientific method that just builds on previous observations for philosophy as a whole.

The thing that I don't understand is why so many who discuss philosophy won't adhere to current methods of dialectics. It's like they ignore the last 150 years of development in how to do a rational argument and when they hear counter-arguments they don't evolve their argument, just point out that they are right because [insert fallacy here]. — Christoffer

This is an internet forum. Not everyone here has any formal education in philosophy. I don't. So not everyone will be able to follow complex terminology or logical constructions. I don't know if my arguments are in line with "current methods", but I think that I can nevertheless construct a rational argument if I try.

Is it possible that there are some people who try to be reasonable, but are inescapably unreasonable, at least in some respect? — S

No, but it is possible that generally reasonable people may adhere to a belief.

How should one treat such people? — S

Argument is a waste of time when confronted with belief.

What was the reason? I understand that this could be abused and get out of hand, but maybe a form that would is different would work. But if there are good reasons/experiences not to, I understand. — Christoffer

Here was the discussion/vote.

Is there a way to block some sections off? Like, if I don't want to see threads posted in "Philosophy of religion" at the top? Also, all the "first cause" arguments should go into that section, Metaphysics/Epistemology is at the moment a dumping ground for first cause-arguments. — Christoffer

Yes, go the the category (e.g. https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/7/philosophy-of-religion) and at the bottom of the page is an eye icon that you can click to cross it out and it will no longer appear on the main page.

What was the reason? I understand that this could be abused and get out of hand, but maybe a form that would is different would work. But if there are good reasons/experiences not to, I understand. — Christoffer

It was 3 years ago. Maybe @jamalrob will be open to a new vote now that we're a much bigger community with many more members.

Go and have a little chat with Hume about reason and passion, guys.

The history of philosophy is not a straight line though. There is no equivalent to the scientific method that just builds on previous observations for philosophy as a whole. — Echarmion

Aren't we considering "how we make an argument" something that has been refined over the years? With a growing list of fallacies and biases to guide us past the flaws of human reasoning? Those things have been built upon past understandings of how to compose arguments.

This is an internet forum. Not everyone here has any formal education in philosophy. I don't. So not everyone will be able to follow complex terminology or logical constructions. I don't know if my arguments are in line with "current methods", but I think that I can nevertheless construct a rational argument if I try. — Echarmion

Yes, and I don't either, but I've been seriously autodidacting how to do arguments, how to try and avoid fallacies and biases. Even if no one has formal education, it's I think at least at a minimum required to understand basic philosophy on a philosophy forum. The guidelines even state that you need to apply proper arguments. And while I'm not saying I manage to be perfect in this sense, especially compared to those with academic philosophical training, I at least try and follow how things need to be done and if someone has a problem with how I write something or rationalize I try and listen in order to understand and evolve my argument, like a dialectic is supposed to.

The problem though, is that some don't even apply the basics and discuss just like they would on say, Facebook or other forums. Philosophy, at least in my opinion, requires at least to apply yourself to the basics of it and especially listen to counter-arguments properly, instead of spamming the same thing over and over again.

Sometimes an argument just goes in circles between a few people saying the same thing over and over, other people shake their heads and leaves the discussion to those people and the thread just dies. Just because people aren't even applying anything close to a dialectic.

I think there should be an addition to the top of the forum beside guidelines, which have some tips on how to form an argument, a list of fallacies and biases and a note on the importance of reading and understanding someone's counter-argument before answering. It would be helpful for everyone who has little to no knowledge of philosophy when registering on this forum.

It was 3 years ago. Maybe jamalrob will be open to a new vote now that we're a much bigger community with many more members. — Michael

I think it's possible to have a vote system again. Maybe just skip the "downvote" since that's seriously able to be abused. Voting someone up can only be done once and you can remove that vote if you want, but never downvote. Then if someone votes on someone as being a good dialectical sparring partner but then realize that person is misbehaving, later on, he/she can just remove the vote.

Through that, no one can just downvote someone because they don't like what they say, they can only vote positive on someone they think is behaving properly and if they change their mind, just remove the vote. The numbers apply to a "respected" scale, meaning, it's not about who is "the best at philosophy", but if you reach over a certain number of votes you become "respected" or "quality poster".

Might that work? Or are there any problems I'm not seeing with this?

I think it's possible to have a vote system again. Maybe just skip the "downvote" since that's seriously able to be abused. — Christoffer

Downvotes weren't actually an option, just upvotes. The main issue was that there was a cumulative total on a user's profile and an option on the members list to list members by the total number of votes they received creating a hierarchy of users, and most people didn't want to live in my shadow.

I guess we must all deal with the situation of being thought of as an unreasonable person by at least a few people. Perhaps only because unreasonable people unreasonably think others are being unreasonable. — Judaka

But surely you agree that reasonable people reasonably think others are being unreasonable. So no, what you say above isn't the only explanation for this situation.

It's a confusing situation that should be handled with care or humour. — Judaka

Does your "handled with care" rule out straightforwardly pointing things like this out? Or perhaps only to those who we think can handle the criticism? The rest we must refrain from such criticism or sugarcoat it so that it's easier to swallow? The priority is people's feelings over speaking the truth straightforwardly?

The skill is not using reason, which everyone with working mental faculties is capable of. The skill is questioning yourself and your biases.

In light of your recent behaviour in your thread on idealism, perhaps a little self-reflection might be helpful. — Echarmion

Spit it out, then. What exactly are you suggesting? You think that I indicated bias and did not question myself enough? Or something else? Please clarify and elaborate. One of the upshots with me is that you don't have to worry about refraining from making a relevant criticism or having to sugarcoat it. I assure you, I can handle it.

My prediction is that some people will use this discussion as another opportunity to disapprove of my tone, instead of talking about the topic of being unreasonable. But I could be wrong.

I'm not unaware that in creating this discussion, some people could effectively view that as me painting a large target on my chest. Fire away! (But try to be reasonable).

Maybe this forum needs a scoring system? Don't know how that would look like, but if someone is writing proper posts, answers with respect to the argument and keep their fallacies down you could invisibly "like" their post. Even if that post is against your point, most people in here know when they get proper feedback/counterargument and when they get a nutcase on their tail.

With that, those with a higher score shows as "respected member" or "quality member" or something. I guess we could make a whole argument-discussion out of such a system, but it would help distinguish between those who time after time just rant nonsense and those who come here for a proper philosophical discussion. — Christoffer

I prefer it without the point scoring system. And one problem I see with wanting it to be a reflection of reasonableness is that I doubt that that would show with someone who is reasonable but who is also pretty blunt or sarcastic or whatever, things that can get on people's nerves. There was that comparison of Socrates with a gadfly, and if Athens had a point scoring system, I doubt that that gadfly would have fared too well under it, not that he'd care a great deal. He had higher priorities.

Reason is a skill that can be taught. But it is a skill precisely because we are all unreasonable. It's an ideal that we can aspire to and follow, but we can never just be reasonable -- even to get by in our day-to-day lives we must rely upon heuristics and fallacious reasoning, things which we have developed on the basis of how it satisfies our needs and desires rather than on the basis that it satisfies the criterions of reason.

That's why science and philosophy are hard to do. We are intentionally breaking our habits to obtain a different outcome.

But you know that, doncha? Were you just letting off steam? — Amity

:grin:

Mods should put a pin to the top of this forum with a list of fallacies and biases and prompt people to keep them in mind. — Christoffer

That's the best suggestion I've heard for this place in a long time. :100:

Is it possible that there are some people who try to be reasonable, but are inescapably unreasonable, at least in some respect?
— S
No, but it is possible that generally reasonable people may adhere to a belief.

How should one treat such people?
— S
Argument is a waste of time when confronted with belief. — Galuchat

Please explain. To be clear, in response to my first question, I would like a reason why not. (I don't doubt what you say is possible). And in response to my second question, I'd like an elaboration.

Downvotes weren't actually an option, just upvotes. The main issue was that there was a cumulative total on a user's profile and an option on the members list to list members by the total number of votes they received creating a hierarchy of users, and most people didn't want to live in my shadow. — Michael

Understandable, but what if you removed the ability to list by rank or see how many votes?
I mean that if the rank score is invisible to everyone, including yourself and then, let's say 10 votes, gives you a "sign" beside your name on posts that say something like "Reliable Poster", then at 15, it switches to "Respected Poster", then at 25 it says "Quality Poster" and at 50, "Platinum member" and at 100, "Gold member" and a star of approval.

And a post describing the different levels with an explanation about what it means.

That way there's no real hierarchy, only personal stats and it might even give the incentive to behave better in order to earn a better status. Instead of competition, it's about your own effort put into the posts you write.

(of course, we can have funnier levels, like "Sokrates Master" as the highest or something :grin: )

Understandable, but what if you removed the ability to list by rank or see how many votes? — Christoffer

Unforunately the software doesn't allow for that, which incidentally was our preference.

Reason is a skill that can be taught. But it is a skill precisely because we are all unreasonable. It's an ideal that we can aspire to and follow, but we can never just be reasonable -- even to get by in our day-to-day lives we must rely upon heuristics and fallacious reasoning, things which we have developed on the basis of how it satisfies our needs and desires rather than on the basis that it satisfies the criterions of reason.

That's why science and philosophy are hard to do. We are intentionally breaking our habits to obtain a different outcome. — Moliere

I didn't mean in terms of absolutes, I meant in general, or in a specific respect. We can be reasonable or unreasonable in the sense I meant.

Spit it out, then. What exactly are you suggesting? You think that I indicated bias and did not question myself enough? Or something else? Please clarify and elaborate. One of the upshots with me is that you don't have to worry about refraining from making a relevant criticism or having to sugarcoat it. I assure you, I can handle it. — S

I think you did not question yourself enough. You refused to restate your points or expand on them. You also assumed any criticism or request for clarification was made in bad faith, or from an incomplete understanding of your argument.

Restating or explaining your position is often a learning experience, as you have to actually understand your argument to explain it. If you simply refuse to deal with any criticism that does not precisely fit into some narrow window you defined, you come across as not really interested in discussion, and more in feeling superior.

I think you did not question yourself enough. You refused to restate your points or expand on them. — Echarmion

When and for what reason, though? That's very important. You're suggesting that that indicates that I didn't question myself enough, but there are a multitude of other explanations for that. So why your explanation over others? Maybe I refused because I thought that people weren't engaging fairly, like I thought about Terrapin, or for the wrong purpose, like I thought about Michael, or maybe I refused out of exasperation of not getting through despite trying, as with Metaphysician Undercover. Those reasons don't strike me as unreasonable. What strikes me as unreasonable is not having any such rules and limits for engaging with people.

You also assumed any criticism or request for clarification was made in bad faith, or from an incomplete understanding of your argument. — Echarmion

Maybe I did think that at times, but they weren't necessarily assumptions as opposed to reasonable beliefs. And I think that I'm often quite careful with my wording. For example, I might say that I suspect such-and-such. A suspicion isn't an assumption or an accusation. It's just an expression of what I have an inkling might be the case. But sure, I don't deny that I'm not always that careful, and I'm less likely to be careful like that if you've become an exasperation for me.

Restating or explaining your position is often a learning experience, as you have to actually understand your argument to explain it. If you simply refuse to deal with any criticism that does not precisely fit into some narrow window you defined, you come across as not really interested in discussion, and more in feeling superior. — Echarmion

You have to be strict with some people, though. Don't you agree? It's very important to stay on topic and on point. That approach isn't guaranteed to work, of course. But I also have to consider the effort that I'm putting in each time. When you put the effort in, you expect results, and if you keep putting in the effort, but you don't get results, then that's when eventually it begins to justify cutting things short or trying to really get them to focus on this one thing that they just keep on seeming to neglect.

Soundness of reason is merely a reference to linguistic convention, and has no significance beyond convention.

Take any example of unreasonable behaviour. Once the behaviour is understood, the unreasonableness disappears. Of course, we might not like a person's behaviour even when we understand it.