Everyone agrees with them, and yet think their interlocutors are the ones not adhering to the rules, it's always the other party being unreasonable. So 'the rules' do not, in fact, manage to specify anything useful, — Isaac
I wrote a long convoluted answer to you, and then realised that what you say is simply not true. — unenlightened
Just going to tell me I'm wrong in a single sentence. We're three exchanges in to our disagreement and already you're either breaking your own rules or you've decided that I'm so outside of the pale that I'm not worth engaging with in the spirit of resolving conflict. — Isaac
I disagree that most people are self critical (effectively so), Whilst I agree that some people are more fair-minded than others, I disagree with the implication that our judgement of this property is sufficiently objective not to just create our own echo chamber. I disagree that simply flagging up the danger is sufficient to illustrate how it can be overcome. — Isaac
So how do we proceed to resolve those disagreements if you're already at the stage where potentially mutually-respectful in-depth answers are already being discarded in favour of unsupported declarations of what is and is not the case? — Isaac
The fact that thou and I have acknowledged the tendency is part of our resistance to it. — unenlightened
Flagging up the danger is not sufficient, but it is a sign of awareness of the problem, and the first step. — unenlightened
The whole thrust of my argument is that conflicts cannot always be resolved, and it at least takes a willingness to engage and attempt to be fair-minded in the knowledge that it does not come naturally. — unenlightened
if you disagree with my proposals, to bring forth your better ones. — unenlightened
Now you're having the same problem I had, and many others have had with unenlightened.So you're not going to either "[ask] me for expansion, justification an so on", nor "[admit] [y]our fallibility", nor "treat others as equals by laying things out clearly, and giving explanations and references as appropriate", nor "[be] willing to reconsider in the light of the discussion".
Just going to tell me I'm wrong in a single sentence. We're three exchanges in to our disagreement and already you're either breaking your own rules or you've decided that I'm so outside of the pale that I'm not worth engaging with in the spirit of resolving conflict. — Isaac
Oh wait, you did the same thing you are accusing of unenlightened is doing.I'm not supporting Harry's position here (I disagree with it quite strongly in fact) — Isaac
According to your statements in other threads on other topics, I don't need to show anything except express that is how I feel.More rhetorical questions. And very silly questions too. Of course in a discussion one brings in terms that were not in the op. Terms like "logic" for example. And no, an authoritarian does not cease to be an authoritarian because people ignore him. So yet again your rhetoric doesn't even disagree with what I have said. You claim logic, but you cannot construct an argument of your own or understand one when presented with it. Make an argument Harry, I dare you. Or link to an argument you have made in this thread. So us this all powerful logic you possess. — unenlightened
I see 'the rules' being far more often used as ready means of dismissing uncomfortable arguments than as the intellectual hygiene fdrake rightly advises. — Isaac
But if we are to dismiss people from our discursive environment on the grounds of rule-breaking behaviour, some of them must be wrong about that. Is their wrongness something we can stand on (like the fact that the earth is round), or their wrongness just another disagreement we have, in which case identifying it hasn't helped us resolve the conflict at all. — Isaac
If we resolve our conflicts, have we produced an echo chamber? — unenlightened
I think appeals to vague concepts such as 'fair-mindedness' and 'honest engagement' cause more problems than they solve by distracting from the actual point of dispute to dispute about those terms. They should be avoided. — Isaac
I feel logical. You say that I am illogical. That it offensive to me. — Harry Hindu
That sounds logical. :up:I think everyone is sensitive like that, everyone is not entirely logical, but also emotional. — unenlightened
There's a certain amount of vulnerability involved in discussions that actually change how people think. I mean, we have them with our partners (or, ideally, should be able to); I've realised I've been an arse for reasons that were hitherto that moment beyond my comprehension due to a strong emotional reaction or castigation a lot. A performative demonstration of the effects of my commitments or lack of care. I've had that a lot when seriously studying something; like, reading a book, taking notes, finding secondary literature; but a lot less in debates and discussions. — fdrake
(11) Do not hang back and simply ask questions; if you position yourself always as the critic and the cynic, you can bolster your own beliefs simply by rejecting all others - and it is much easier to show a flaw or falsify than to get a good picture of something or confirm. — fdrake
There's a certain amount of vulnerability involved in discussions that actually change how people think. — fdrake
I think there's quite a lot of value in hearing "you're not playing by my rules", or such frustrations, as an invitation; in the same way we'd (I'd?) treat a partner's anger. — fdrake
When someone keeps contradicting themselves when asked to clarify their beliefs, how are we suppose to know whether we are disagreeing or agreeing on anything?We haven't resolved that conflict, so neither of us has demonstrated our method successfully. — unenlightened
When someone keeps contradicting themselves when asked to clarify their beliefs, how are we suppose to know whether we are disagreeing or agreeing on anything?
It seems like the first step would be to clarify each of our beliefs in such a way that the other side can determine whether we are actually agreeing or disagreeing. — Harry Hindu
if one is unable to begin this dialogue with an equality and an engagement that will look for first common ground and then for the detail of disagreement, then it all becomes impossible. — unenlightened
If I am not to be trusted in what I say, no amount of logic can resolve that. Our disagreement cannot even be expressed. — unenlightened
hat's essentially what I mean by suggesting we avoid many of the more vague 'rules of engagement'. They're simply too tempting at that fragile stage. Also your interlocutor knows you should know you're wrong ("that should have worked!") and are sometimes frustrated at the delay. I certainly learnt that one with my children, don't push for the admission of wrongness... just wait. — Isaac
Yes indeed. One of my very early suggestions was that to resolve a conflict we have to establish the conflict. — unenlightened
I think I understand what you're saying here, that, like a partner's anger, we can interpret the expression as "I'm not having that kind of discussion" like realising that when your partner is having a discussion about your not having done the dishes, it is not appropriate to ask for supporting evidence (learnt that one the hard way). — Isaac
If two people involved in the discussion disagree on what the matter they're discussing is, or what's especially significant about it (cognitively/factually or emotionally), in my experience I and my hypothetical interlocutors find that place of mutual understanding, even if the disagreement persists, much harder to reach. — fdrake
I think a paradigmatic instance of it that we see on the internet a lot is those one line fisking posts that just say the name of a fallacy. It's little more than gainsaying with Latin spices. — fdrake
what strategies can be used to ensure that people cultivate being responsive to their interlocutors? — fdrake
to find out what the other chap is saying, rather than to prove him wrong or contradictory regardless. — unenlightened
Yes indeed. One of my very early suggestions was that to resolve a conflict we have to establish the conflict. — unenlightened
If I am not to be trusted in what I say, no amount of logic can resolve that. Our disagreement cannot even be expressed. — unenlightened
Exactly. The common ground is logic. If you refuse to use it, then there is no point in us having a discussion as I would never be able to understand your position to assert that I either agree or disagree.if one is unable to begin this dialogue with an equality and an engagement that will look for first common ground and then for the detail of disagreement, then it all becomes impossible. — unenlightened
Well, maybe Banno can explain how we know that we are talking about the same thing, and not talking past each other, when we disagree.As Banno tends to say, and rightly so, we agree on far more than we disagree. — creativesoul
The fresh start would be in addressing how we can disagree or agree on anything if what was said before contradicts what is said now?I'm thinking of this post as an attempt at a fresh start built upon pre-existing agreement(s). Let's bring some into view. That seems as good a path as any. So... — creativesoul
Sure. But in (2) how do we know that the two different opinions are about the same thing?Here's a good list of proposed agreements to form a basis for better discussion.
1 Some conflicts get resolved.
2 Sometimes the audience members are uncertain which side to believe(assuming two different opinions/narratives/explanations for the same events).
Do we agree that the two statements above report upon two remarkably different situations, consisting of remarkably different things? — creativesoul
The common ground is logic. — Harry Hindu
Yeah, I hate that, like we're playing 'name that fallacy'. — Isaac
I don't think I want to go round again, even if you do. — unenlightened
I'm going to go ahead answer this question myself since no one has been able to answer it without contradicting themselves.Here's a good list of proposed agreements to form a basis for better discussion.
1 Some conflicts get resolved.
2 Sometimes the audience members are uncertain which side to believe(assuming two different opinions/narratives/explanations for the same events).
Do we agree that the two statements above report upon two remarkably different situations, consisting of remarkably different things?
— creativesoul
Sure. But in (2) how do we know that the two different opinions are about the same thing? — Harry Hindu
Yes, I think this is the case too, but (stop me if I'm getting too psychoanalytical) there's an advantage there - in terms of game theory - to a person wishing to avoid cognitive dissonance but with low confidence in their belief. If they clearly present the nature of the disagreement and the terms of the argument (the mode it will take) then if they eventually have to admit they were wrong, they know the other person will know that earlier than they themselves would feel comfortable changing their belief. Muddy the waters regarding terms of the discussion and you buy yourself time to change a belief if necessary without it being clear to all that you're wrong. — Isaac
Vulnerability is exactly the right idea, I think. One discovers that one was wrong, that one was not good, or logical or clever, or honest or whatever virtue one had awarded oneself by way of identity, and one is wounded. A good friend, or a good lover, is not afraid to wound one the way a surgeon does, and a good friend can be trusted to do so when necessary. We fight; we are wounded; and if our egos are well pruned, they will bear more fruit. — unenlightened
Harry, will you do me a favour?
Stop quoting me. It disturbs my peace of mind. — unenlightened
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.