Is it possible that there are some people who try to be reasonable, but are inescapably unreasonable, at least in some respect? — S
I suppose this is a skill. A skill that some people just lack, and have real trouble picking up. — S
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
Is it possible that there are some people who try to be reasonable, but are inescapably unreasonable, at least in some respect? — S
...when should you give up trying? What if, for example, you had spent hours and hours of your own time, without pay? — S
Yes, as evidenced by the many mistakes people, including very smart people, have made in the history of philosophy. — Echarmion
Human minds are not perfect reasoning machines. — Echarmion
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
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 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
No, but it is possible that generally reasonable people may adhere to a belief.Is it possible that there are some people who try to be reasonable, but are inescapably unreasonable, at least in some respect? — S
Argument is a waste of time when confronted with belief.How should one treat such people? — S
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
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
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
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
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
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. — Christoffer
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
It's a confusing situation that should be handled with care or humour. — Judaka
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
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
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
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
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? — Christoffer
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
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. — Echarmion
You also assumed any criticism or request for clarification was made in bad faith, or from an incomplete understanding of your argument. — Echarmion
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
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.