Mistakes

tinman917

There is a lot of disagreement in things like: religion, politics, philosophy.
(In particular with the latter, people on this forum disagree with each other!)

When one person disagrees with another this means that each thinks the other has made a mistake of some kind.
My question is: exactly what (kind of) mistake does each think the other is making?

So, I would like people to respond to this post about particular disagreements they have.
Saying what they think is the mistake that is being made by the people they disagree with.

For example: Christians, can you say what mistake you think non-Christians (non-theists in particular) are making?
And vice-versa.

Another example might be left-wing vs right-wing. (Like Democrats vs Republicans.)
Or people who have opposing views on Free will.

Of course with some disagreements the disagreement is not because of mistake at all. (And so maybe not a 'disagreement' at all, strictly speaking.) For example the (famous late 19th century) Brahms vs Wagner schism (a more recent equivalent might be Beatles vs Rolling Stones). This disagreement isn’t based on one group thinking the other has made a mistake. (Or it shouldn’t do anyway.) It’s just that they have different tastes.

Some other things.

First, there is less disagreement in science than there is in philosophy. But, given that both are based on rational thought, I would have thought there would be about the same in each. In fact, the subject with the the least disagreement is mathematics. I would have expected philosophy to have about the same levels of disagreement as that.

When I talk about knowing what mistake the wrong person has made, I mean exactly that. For example when someone makes a mistake adding up some numbers. Then I know exactly what kind of mistake that is. Mostly because I have in the past made the same mistake myself. The mistake is one of not paying attention. Of not concentrating.

(It’s possible that my question makes no sense. Or that it’s a lot more complicated than I think it is.)

Jack Cummins

↪tinman917

You have opened up a wider area of discussion than mine. I am inclined to think that people, especially in philosophy have a great amount of attachment to their views. In religious circles, people are probably more open about this because they speak in terms of their 'faith,' whereas philosophers do not use such a word often but they probably do have great investment, emotionally, in the way they have constructed their own thinking.

In terms of 'mistakes', I am often quite surprised by the way in which others, including some on this forum, jump in to point out to people that they are mistaken. It can be dismissive and defensive, and perhaps it is a cover up for lack of certainty.

8livesleft

First, there is less disagreement in science than there is in philosophy. But, given that both are based on rational thought, I would have thought there would be about the same in each. — tinman917

Both are based on thought but there are tools and standards in science that people must agree to use prior to testing each other's theories. And usually they're talking about more concrete applications.

I'm quite sure there's a standard method in philosophical discourse but the topics seem more abstract and open ended.

khaled

↪tinman917

When one person disagrees with another this means that each thinks the other has made a mistake of some kind. — tinman917

This is usually because we have a stupid habit (myself included) of assuming the other person is starting form the same premises as us. In whichcase the only way to reach a conclusion would be to make a logical error.

It’s just that they have different tastes. — tinman917

In other words different starting premises.

First, there is less disagreement in science than there is in philosophy. But, given that both are based on rational thought, I would have thought there would be about the same in each. — tinman917

Well philosophy is untestable. I can't show you empirical evidence to support my metaphysical theory.

In terms of 'mistakes', I am often quite surprised by the way in which others, including some on this forum, jump in to point out to people that they are mistaken. It can be dismissive and defensive, and perhaps it is a cover up for lack of certainty. — Jack Cummins

:up:

TheMadFool

↪tinman917

Since no one is going to listen to you unless you have an argument or, at least, an attempt at one, mistakes can be of the following types:

1. Having unjustified assumptions in your argument. I've been watching videos on youtube on what some refer to as self-evident truths, truths that need no argument to prop them up but I'm deeply suspicious of such claims. However, if one asks that some prropositions to be treated axiomatically then I don't mind it for axioms are essentially propositions that, if made explicit, are of the form "assume to be true the proposition that..." and that's completely legit as an exploratory maneuver.

2. Errors in logic and these can take the form of cognitive biases, formal and informal fallacies. You can look these up on Google.

3. A different kind of mistake is the inconsistency or contradiction in a belief system. The logic is impeccable, the propositions are axiomatic but the propositions are inconsistent or contradictory.

4. The last and the one mistake that I fear the most is what Wolfgang Pauli (1900 - 1958) was said to have accused a young physicist of committing, "you're not even wrong".

The phrase is generally attributed to the theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or careless thinking. Rudolf Peierls documents an instance in which "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'." This is also often quoted as "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong", or in Pauli's native German, "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" — Wikipedia

:chin: It must count as a really sad day for the person who couldn't even make a mistake, forget about getting it right!

tim wood

Mistakes are what makes the world crunchy instead of smooth, smooth usually better. Consider: banks and credit card companies not only get it right nearly 100% of the time, but they have to get it right. And that added bit of necessity costs a fortune to implement. When, for example, you deposit a dollar or a check, how many times do you imagine that dollar or check is counted before it is disposed of and counted no more?

Mistakes and mistake correction are a significant part of the business of the world. And to be sure some mistakes can be a problem. But the traveling companion of many mistakes is the ego of the one making the mistake. "Ego" here shorthand for all the failings and failures of mistaken people. That is, there are two, at least two but certainly two, problems: the problem itself which is likely not much more than technical in nature. And people. Example: in the US are about 70M people who made a terrible and unaccountable - reasonless - mistake. And a sizeable subset of those buying, literally, with their own hard currency, into a whackdoodle conspiracy theory that from every angle threatens their own self-interest and well-being.

It is, then, a fair approximation, if mistakes themselves are a part of the furniture of the world, to identify people as the real mistakes. Whether all or some an open question, and so long as I'm right and you're wrong, I'll go with some. But the question devolves to how to fix people. Education my first twelve answers, after that....

Jack Cummins

↪tim wood

I am glad that you think that mistakes are an important pathway. When I write, I am aware that probably a lot of what I say will contain ideas that I will later look back upon and ask why did I ever say that? But I do believe that thinking and writing are experimental and risk taking is part of the process of discovery.

I also think that our own egos get in the way. Discussion whether in the form or talking or writing is discourse with others, exposing us to potential shame and humiliation. When I was thinking about questions of truth in other posts I ended up wondering what if the truth which I found was one which led me to complete rejection by others and whether I would be strong enough to encompass others' complete rejection? But perhaps, we just need to take risks and not fear others telling us that we have made mistakes.

Judaka

↪tinman917

Within science, the method of valuation is clear, demonstrate through the evidence to reasonably or definitively prove or disprove a claim. Within philosophy, there is no such clarity, rather, valuation is so ridiculously complicated and nuanced that there's almost no chance of sharing one with someone else, let alone everyone else. The simple answer is that philosophy draws on personal aspects of ourselves which are crucial in the conclusions we arrive at. It is not at all surprising that my views are not held by people with very different personalities, circumstances and so on.

Besides that, even if we're essentially identical in our thinking, that doesn't mean we'll agree at all. Take tribalism as an example, of its nature, different groups with tribalistic attitudes will be drawn into conflict.
In science, it's not like that, if we all agree the Earth is round then our opinions must be harmonious. I simply don't think it's reasonable to expect philosophy and science to function similarly with regards to the homogeneousness of opinions in the respective fields.

praxis

In terms of 'mistakes', I am often quite surprised by the way in which others, including some on this forum, jump in to point out to people that they are mistaken. It can be dismissive and defensive, and perhaps it is a cover up for lack of certainty. — Jack Cummins

It's an odd thought that a member would jump-in to cover-up their uncertainty.

Jack Cummins

↪praxis

I just think it is so easy to jump into discussions on the forum, for worse or better. I am guilty of jumping into conversations because it is has never been easier without the shackles of the three dimensional world.

But I like to keep hold of reflective awareness, and make no judgements about others' intentions, although I do recommend mindfulness in which expressed of ideas is so instant, by the mere touch of letters on the keyboard.

It is an arena for potential mistakes and other interesting phenomena. Apart from mistakes, the consequences may be exciting, and be springboard for thoughts in the aftermath of mistakes. Perhaps the mistakes foreshadowed greater clarity of examined forms of thinking.

Pfhorrest

↪tinman917

I think that the common error underlying pretty much all the positions I disagree with is assuming the false dichotomy that either there must be some unquestionable answers (answers that are not to be questioned), which I call "dogmatism", or else we will be left with some unanswerable questions (questions that cannot be answered), which I call "relativism". That leads people to erring either to one side or the other of that false dichotomy, and from either of those errors stem all the other errors:

(Green is true or valid, red is false or invalid).

Outlander

Absent of strict logical fallacy (ie. being logically incorrect/flawed) I'd imagine it's something of oversight, myopia, or lack of consideration observed by another in your premise/statement/claim that perhaps was undetected/not addressed by you. Not to say you're "flat out wrong" simply missing something, basically.

infin8fish

What if your disagreement with the other person is not based on the idea that the other has made a mistake but is a search for an answer? This could be a conscious search or more likely unconcious. The very act of interaction is a search for information, conflict could be seen as a more aggressive search. Why do philosophers, scientists, theologians or anyone searching for an answer of some kind engage with other people? To find an answer, to see if others can either support their idea or dispute it. Could the most obstinate person with the most obstinate argument perhaps be convinced otherwise if a certain counter argument is used or is their obstinacy just a part of their personality which no argument could ever counter? Are their interactions an attempt to correct other people's mistakes or is it an unconscious search for an answer?

This is the way I look for truth. I will argue my case attempting to counter the opposing view. My views will either
/be reinforced by the other person's inability to pose a counter argument that I find logically disputes my premise or by their agreement through my convincing them
or
/will be defeated by a better argument
or
/my premise may be left in a state of flux leading me to try and come up with a better premise.

All these outcomes are valuable to me. The "mistakes" made by other people if a premise remains disputed is their lack of logically countering my argument.

geospiza

So, I would like people to respond to this post about particular disagreements they have.
Saying what they think is the mistake that is being made by the people they disagree with. — tinman917

I disagree with utopian visions. The mistake is in thinking that human beings are perfectible.

Mistakes

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions