David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

> My father told me long ago that the objective isn't to persuade someone,
> it's to provide him with the arguments with which he may later persuade
> himself.

To which I'd add "and then stop talking, to give her the time in which
to persuade herself, and to avoid making her so tired of hearing the
same arguments repeated over and over that she instinctually recoils
from the very thought of even the most reasonable of them."

Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html

In article <1ii80e4.1msvwj41j1vugbN%zeborah@gmail.com>,
zeborah@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:

> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > My father told me long ago that the objective isn't to persuade someone,
> > it's to provide him with the arguments with which he may later persuade
> > himself.
>
> To which I'd add "and then stop talking, to give her the time in which
> to persuade herself, and to avoid making her so tired of hearing the
> same arguments repeated over and over that she instinctually recoils
> from the very thought of even the most reasonable of them."

One way to get that result is for her to respond with some version of "I
think I now understand your argument and will have to think about it"
instead of some version of "your argument is wrong because."

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now

David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

> In article <1ii80e4.1msvwj41j1vugbN%zeborah@gmail.com>,
> zeborah@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:
>
> > David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > My father told me long ago that the objective isn't to persuade someone,
> > > it's to provide him with the arguments with which he may later persuade
> > > himself.
> >
> > To which I'd add "and then stop talking, to give her the time in which
> > to persuade herself, and to avoid making her so tired of hearing the
> > same arguments repeated over and over that she instinctually recoils
> > from the very thought of even the most reasonable of them."
>
> One way to get that result is for her to respond with some version of "I
> think I now understand your argument and will have to think about it"
> instead of some version of "your argument is wrong because."

Yes. But remember that she is not trying to be persuaded; you're the
one trying to persuade her. So you (if you want her to be persuaded)
can't rely on the hope that she'll do this at the appropriate moment,
but may have to take action yourself -- or rather stop taking action
(viz. arguing) at the point where the argument is getting repetitive or
otherwise appears to be irritating her.

This is also advantageous when what you've misinterpreted as "your
argument is wrong because" was actually intended as "I'm happy for you
to believe that, but I choose to continue to believe my argument for now
because". Remember that even if you hope she will persuade herself
later, does not mean she's persuaded yet that such persuasion is
desirable. And indeed, it's not your objective to persuade her so...

Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html

Zeborah wrote:
> Yes. But remember that she is not trying to be
> persuaded; you're the one trying to persuade her.

If one person says something that takes for granted
obviously all X are wicked and do bad things, and the
solution is that all Ys should have total power over all
Xs, and another person (very commonly David Friedman)
argues that they need to look at the evidence, and the
evidence and logic is that it is usually Ys doing bad
things to Xs, then that is a rational and civil
approach.

If, on the other hand the confident proclamation that Xs
are wicked and need to be controlled by Ys is met by the
equally confident proclamation that Xs are the long
suffering victims of evil Ys, then no one is trying
persuade anyone, but the situation is considerably
worse. Disagreement without attempt to persuade is rude
and uncivil. If there is no attempt at rational
argument, then the assumption, the assumption that I,
unlike David Friedman, frequently make, is that the
other person is simply evil and/or crazy and/or stupid.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:19:54 +1000, "James A. Donald"
<jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in
<news:97qm44tgqap9hvarf09fpiemdp554dneb9@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.misc:

> Zeborah wrote:

>> Yes. But remember that she is not trying to be
>> persuaded; you're the one trying to persuade her.

> If one person says something that takes for granted
> obviously all X are wicked and do bad things, and the
> solution is that all Ys should have total power over all
> Xs, [...]

I don't think that it's happened here in all the years that
I've been reading rasfc. Omit the bit about the solution
and total power, and you might indeed be able to find an
example or two, starting with (but not limited to) some of
your own posts.

[...]

> Disagreement without attempt to persuade is rude
> and uncivil.

Nonsense. There are times when simply registering
disagreement is entirely appropriate and far more civil than
pursuing the issue.

[...]

Brian

James A. Donald wrote:
> Zeborah wrote:
>> Yes. But remember that she is not trying to be
>> persuaded; you're the one trying to persuade her.
>
> If one person says something that takes for granted
> obviously all X are wicked and do bad things, and the
> solution is that all Ys should have total power over all
> Xs, and another person (very commonly David Friedman)
> argues that they need to look at the evidence, and the
> evidence and logic is that it is usually Ys doing bad
> things to Xs, then that is a rational and civil
> approach.
>

True. But quite often the 'taking for granted' appears to be
occuring in the mind of an outside observer, whom in honour of
your frequent detection of such a tendency we may call J. Now it
may well be, and it often seems to me that it is, that what is in
fact happening is:

A is making A-arg, but intends no such belief about X, and/or no
such belief about Y. J is in fact responding to A'-arg, which
does have this unpleasant character, because A and A' either seem
very similar, or logically coupled, or coupled by frequent
association in the mouths of the Revolutionary Justice League of Y.

But K may not think the two are similar at all; and L may
disagree with the supposed logical implication; and M may see no
reason to give a flying flip about the opinions of the RJLY, or
to assume that A does either. Then again, N may wholly agree
with J about the substance, but suspect that A's own take on the
issue is more like K or L. GW often finds himself in one or more
of these positions. Given several past exchanges, I nearly think
that DF may do so too.

I say nothing here about whether J is actually *correct*, because
none of the observers know that; but the conversational maxim of
charity usually leads me to begin with one of the less salty
options. When it does not, this is sometimes because there is
really not much doubt at all, and it is probably also sometimes
because I am being a bit of an ***: I'm not really the best judge
of that last.

> If, on the other hand the confident proclamation that Xs
> are wicked and need to be controlled by Ys is met by the
> equally confident proclamation that Xs are the long
> suffering victims of evil Ys, then no one is trying
> persuade anyone, but the situation is considerably
> worse.

True.

Disagreement without attempt to persuade is rude
> and uncivil.

Unless it be promptly left at agreement to disagree, persuasion
seeming unlikely and the attempt counter-productive. That is the
reverse of uncivil.

If there is no attempt at rational
> argument, then the assumption, the assumption that I,
> unlike David Friedman, frequently make, is that the
> other person is simply evil and/or crazy and/or stupid.
>

Or, for me, that there is such a severe failure of communication
that the subject cannot profitably be pursued directly, at least
not now and by the parties involved.

If I actually come to believe I'm in the presence of people who
are drunk on some really nasty spirits, I generally prefer to
follow the example of the wise pig that found itself in the
gutter with the sot.

--
Cheers,

Gray

---
To unmung address, lop off the 'be invalid' command.

Zeborah wrote:
> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1ii80e4.1msvwj41j1vugbN%zeborah@gmail.com>,
>> zeborah@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:
>>
>>> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My father told me long ago that the objective isn't to persuade someone,
>>>> it's to provide him with the arguments with which he may later persuade
>>>> himself.
>>> To which I'd add "and then stop talking, to give her the time in which
>>> to persuade herself, and to avoid making her so tired of hearing the
>>> same arguments repeated over and over that she instinctually recoils
>>> from the very thought of even the most reasonable of them."
>> One way to get that result is for her to respond with some version of "I
>> think I now understand your argument and will have to think about it"
>> instead of some version of "your argument is wrong because."
>
> Yes. But remember that she is not trying to be persuaded; you're the
> one trying to persuade her. So you (if you want her to be persuaded)
> can't rely on the hope that she'll do this at the appropriate moment,
> but may have to take action yourself -- or rather stop taking action
> (viz. arguing) at the point where the argument is getting repetitive or
> otherwise appears to be irritating her.
>
> This is also advantageous when what you've misinterpreted as "your
> argument is wrong because" was actually intended as "I'm happy for you
> to believe that, but I choose to continue to believe my argument for now
> because". Remember that even if you hope she will persuade herself
> later, does not mean she's persuaded yet that such persuasion is
> desirable. And indeed, it's not your objective to persuade her so...
>

I seldom engage in pure AOL, but on this occasion I feel
compelled to: nice summing-up. This may at least provide David
with a useful datapoint, since you and I otherwise come at these
things from such considerably different perspectives!

--
Cheers,

Gray

---
To unmung address, lop off the 'be invalid' command.

James A. Donald:
> > If one person says something that takes for granted
> > obviously all X are wicked and do bad things, and
> > the solution is that all Ys should have total power
> > over all Xs, [...]

"Brian M. Scott"
> I don't think that it's happened here in all the years
> that I've been reading rasfc.

X's are the old class, Y's are the new class, and I see
this all the time - most recently in the thread on Union
Carbide, which one person who doubtless feels himself to
be entirely reasonable, decent, and middle of the road
politically, assumed that businessmen need minute and
detailed supervision from the new class, and that the
Indian government failed to give Union Carbide this
minute supervision, unlike the beneficent and benevolent
US government, whose minute control and detailed
supervision explains why our capitalists are not able to
be as greedy and destructive as they would like to be.

This also recently showed up in parents vs teachers,
where it was assumed as quite obvious that parents were
frequently unfit to raise children, and needed to be
tightly supervised by the proper authorities. After
all, teachers are appointed by the state, while *ANYONE*
could be a parent.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald wrote:
> > If one person says something that takes for granted
> > obviously all X are wicked and do bad things, and
> > the solution is that all Ys should have total power
> > over all Xs,

Graham Woodland
> True. But quite often the 'taking for granted'
> appears to be occuring in the mind of an outside
> observer, whom in honour of your frequent detection of
> such a tendency we may call J.

Anyone who proposes to socialize some activity, propose
that certain members of the new class, will have
complete control of all members of the old class who
actually make that activity happen. Similarly for the
frequent claims that some activity is regulated, or
should be regulated, to an extent that is far beyond the
level of regulation that mortals are capable of.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

James A. Donald wrote:

> Disagreement without attempt to persuade is rude and uncivil.

That's a bit of a culture shock there. For me, and I suppose many
others, disagreement without attempt to persuade is an exchange of
ideas, a _discussion_, and it serves many purposes.

The effect of someone politely setting out why they believe a particular
stance while fully respecting my right to - based on my experience and
any evidence I have come across - form a different opinino of my own -
is that I will not view them as overbearing or manipulative, but rather
as interested in discussing a topic.

If you take out personal attacks and assumption that the other side is
obviously stupid because they haven't looked at the evidence, you tend
to get more thorough examinations of the ideas and conclusions under
debate.

Quite often evidence offered on usenet is dubious at best, because the
more you know about statistics and scientific studies, the more you know
the level of scrunity necessary before one can accept them; so it's not
a question of argueing 'intuition' against 'rationality' in most cases.

Other than simple, demonstrable facts like gravity, much of the world is
unknown and unknowable. We might have close approximations, we might
have overwhelming evidence, but part of the scientific method is to
accept well-documented statements in the knowledge that someone might
come up with a better explanation - nothing is 'proven', things are 'not
disproven yet'.

When you have an environment where you are certain that the person you
are talking to respects your ability to draw sensible conclusions from
the data (hard and soft) you are presented, you do not have a 'rude and
uncivil' environment, on the contrary.

Catja

--
writing blog @ http://beyond-elechan.livejournal.com

In article
<1ii7j3q.1djuh2n1fwz0ceN%green_knight@greenknight.o rg.uk.invalid>,
green_knight@greenknight.org.uk.invalid (Catja Pafort) wrote:

> James A. Donald wrote:
>
> > Disagreement without attempt to persuade is rude and uncivil.
>
> That's a bit of a culture shock there. For me, and I suppose many
> others, disagreement without attempt to persuade is an exchange of
> ideas, a _discussion_, and it serves many purposes.
>
> The effect of someone politely setting out why they believe a particular
> stance while fully respecting my right to - based on my experience and
> any evidence I have come across - form a different opinino of my own -
> is that I will not view them as overbearing or manipulative, but rather
> as interested in discussing a topic.

At the point where they have set out the why, they are attempting to
persuade--or at least, that's the most obvious reason to. Why would the
other person be interested in your reasons for a belief unless to
consider whether they were good reasons why he should accept it?

I can imagine an anthropologist enquiring of some primitive whose world
view was obviously wildly wrong why he held certain beliefs based on
that world view--or the primitive asking an analogous question of the
anthropologist, knowing that the anthropologist is obvious delusionary,
since he doesn't share the primitive's world view--but that isn't the
pattern of ordinary conversation.

> If you take out personal attacks and assumption that the other side is
> obviously stupid because they haven't looked at the evidence, you tend
> to get more thorough examinations of the ideas and conclusions under
> debate.

I agree. But then, neither of those is likely to persuade. If you take
out the reasons for one's beliefs and any serious examination of
arguments for and against the reasons both parties offer for their
beliefs, you tend to get less thorough examination of the ideas and
conclusions.

> When you have an environment where you are certain that the person you
> are talking to respects your ability to draw sensible conclusions from
> the data (hard and soft) you are presented, you do not have a 'rude and
> uncivil' environment, on the contrary.

But then, stating one's conclusions without offering reasons for them,
which I think is what James is describing, strongly suggests that one
doesn't respect the other person's ability to draw sensible conclusions
from the data.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now

Catja Pafort <green_knight@greenknight.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
> James A. Donald wrote:

>> Disagreement without attempt to persuade is rude and uncivil.

> That's a bit of a culture shock there. For me, and I suppose many
> others, disagreement without attempt to persuade is an exchange of
> ideas, a _discussion_, and it serves many purposes.

I'd even say that I perceive the attempt to persuade me (personally) as
rude and uncivil. It too often feels like someone else trying to force
their opinion on me.

An opinion that I perceive as false and irrational, and me not being in
the least interested in providing all the various data that led me to my
conclusion. Not only because it would mean unravelling the bits and ends
at the front of my thought back to the cause, buried somewhere in the
gray mass of accumulated data, but also because,

1.) I would likely miss any one bit at any one time due to bad memory -
and getting a headache with trying to hold the gray mass at the front of
my thought along with the bits and ends I use normally,

2.) it's likely unpleasant and tedious data and conclusions, for
whatever audience,

3.) I feel it wouldn't end there, but that the discussion would get
boggy the longer it goes, bits I missed providing stumbling stones,
other bits picked out and misinterpreted, and most importantly,

4.) I (usually) don't have the words. My thought is images, feelings,
whole concepts that presenting any one end of in words would be missing
the other ends. One of my characters at some time describes it nicely
(about speaking his thoughts, though he talks differently than I - and
thinks faster - the explanation fits): >>"They aren't words, just
images, feelings, ideas, all whole. Little bits have words, the whole
hasn't. You can't tell a whole picture all at once, but starting at one
end, it looks different when you go from there to the other. It's not
the same."<<

I don't think 2.) and 3.) would gain anyone anything, not me nor anyone
reading it. All in all, it would be very tedious for me, for no gain.
(I'm not interested in convincing anyone. Especially as the gray mass of
accumulated data is freely available for all other people, too. It's out
there in the world, that's where I got it from.)

And then there are subjects that I simply don't care about either way.

Just exchanging views is fine, reading other people's different takes
can be interesting. (But even with that, not all belongs on rasfc.)

You (general you) might say; ah, but you're a writer. But I don't
write with the whole story in mind, I write the scene I see right then.
I have backround files to make notes of the things I find out, and it
takes reading what I wrote again to hold the whole picture, for a time,
and then it's already all written down, the words there. I started
writing the stories down to not forget them. Hauling the data out of the
gray mass somewhere in the back of my brain is something entirely
different.

<snip>

> Other than simple, demonstrable facts like gravity, much of the world
> is unknown and unknowable. We might have close approximations, we
> might have overwhelming evidence, but part of the scientific method
> is to accept well-documented statements in the knowledge that someone
> might come up with a better explanation - nothing is 'proven', things
> are 'not disproven yet'.

With some opinions, some people take the stance that their view is of
course proven, by what they consider facts. There are no doubt some that
would violently disagree with what you said here, and that is their way
of thinking. (Again, someone with whom discussing things doesn't work
out.) To give an SF example; some people think that other worlds _have_
to develope the same way Earth did, no other way possible. (Which I find
ironic, seeing as it's about SF. :) )

--
Tina
>> Why not an alien race that truly is alien?
> Like the Teletubbies?
No, those are demons from hell. -- seen in rec.arts.sf.tv

David Friedman wrote:


> green_knight@greenknight.org.uk.invalid (Catja Pafort) wrote:

> > The effect of someone politely setting out why they believe a particular
> > stance while fully respecting my right to - based on my experience and
> > any evidence I have come across - form a different opinino of my own -
> > is that I will not view them as overbearing or manipulative, but rather
> > as interested in discussing a topic.
>
> At the point where they have set out the why, they are attempting to
> persuade--

That might be what you are doing. It is not what I am doing. In this
world of very varied opinions, I am setting out my experiences and my
conclusions so you can understand where I am coming from. And if you say
'that is not my experience at all', then the next step would be to
explore our differing opinions and find commonalities - or work out
based on which individual circumstances we have arrived at our
conclusions.

There are exceptions, but for most usenet conversations, that would be
the mode in which I conduct them.

>or at least, that's the most obvious reason to.

Obvious to you, who has grown up with combative argumentation. Trust me,
that is not why I explain where I'm coming from. I am doing it largely
so other people can take part in the wide variety of life, and can,
ultimately, add to their experience of humanity, which will make them
better writers. A lot of rasfc threads are like that.

> Why would the
> other person be interested in your reasons for a belief unless to
> consider whether they were good reasons why he should accept it?

Because they want to have a conversation with me. Because they are
interested in how people arrive at opinions that make absolutely no
sense to them. They might not be good reasons why *they* should accept
them, but they are good reasons why *I* have developed them.


> I can imagine an anthropologist enquiring of some primitive whose world
> view was obviously wildly wrong

.... get his arse kicked out of the village and with good reason. There
are views of the world that are inconsistent with the shared reality.
There are views of the world that are true within one's personal
reality. What can be dangerous is to take them out of the private sphere
into the public.

Take 'the world was created in six days'. This is a personal belief, and
there is nothing 'obviously wildly wrong' about it - _until_ you use it
to try and explain the fossil record.


> why he held certain beliefs based on
> that world view--or the primitive asking an analogous question of the
> anthropologist, knowing that the anthropologist is obvious delusionary,
> since he doesn't share the primitive's world view--but that isn't the
> pattern of ordinary conversation.

No. The assumption that the other person is obviously wrong is, indeed,
not part of most ordinary conversations. Thank God.



> > If you take out personal attacks and assumption that the other side is
> > obviously stupid because they haven't looked at the evidence, you tend
> > to get more thorough examinations of the ideas and conclusions under
> > debate.
>
> I agree. But then, neither of those is likely to persuade.

And the problem with that is?

> If you take
> out the reasons for one's beliefs and any serious examination of
> arguments for and against the reasons both parties offer for their
> beliefs, you tend to get less thorough examination of the ideas and
> conclusions.

Non sequitur. I'm not saying that one should not lay out one's
reasonings, and the experiences and evidence on which one has based
one's beliefs. I'm saying that one should not assume that everybody
else's experiences are invalid.

And if you do not argue on a personal level (you're obviously
delusional. _You_ haven't looked at the evidence) you're going to get a
better quality discussion, and you're going to get participants who will
be more open to consider the other person's stance.


> > When you have an environment where you are certain that the person you
> > are talking to respects your ability to draw sensible conclusions from
> > the data (hard and soft) you are presented, you do not have a 'rude and
> > uncivil' environment, on the contrary.
>
> But then, stating one's conclusions without offering reasons for them,
> which I think is what James is describing, strongly suggests that one
> doesn't respect the other person's ability to draw sensible conclusions
> from the data.

Sometimes that isn't possible (personal experiences). Sometimes that
isn't the point - when you're trying to tell people where you're coming
from when you take stance X. Sometimes - often? - those beliefs are not
only deeply entrenched and would need a lifetime to unravel (and the
other person is quite unwilling to do so, because they fit into their
view of the world and serve them well) and you know that they are not
going to change in a brief exchange on usenet. And often they are quite
irrelevant to the discussion at and and to having a good relationship
with the other person.

I really don't care whether someone believes in homeopathy or not. I
care when I am being attacked for my opinion about homeopathy. Other
than that, I don't care (and often don't know) what opinion my friends
have about homeopathy. Yet I can see plenty of occasions where I would
state what my personal stance is and why. I don't expect to convince
anyone, I am not willing to be convinced, all I want is to share
experiences and explain why I have arrived at my personal belief.

And the same goes for a lot of topics.


Catja

--
writing blog @ http://beyond-elechan.livejournal.com

David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> green_knight@greenknight.org.uk.invalid (Catja Pafort) wrote:
>> James A. Donald wrote:

>>> Disagreement without attempt to persuade is rude and uncivil.
>>
>> That's a bit of a culture shock there. For me, and I suppose many
>> others, disagreement without attempt to persuade is an exchange of
>> ideas, a _discussion_, and it serves many purposes.
>>
>> The effect of someone politely setting out why they believe a
>> particular stance while fully respecting my right to - based on my
>> experience and any evidence I have come across - form a different
>> opinino of my own - is that I will not view them as overbearing or
>> manipulative, but rather as interested in discussing a topic.

> At the point where they have set out the why, they are attempting to
> persuade--or at least, that's the most obvious reason to. Why would
> the other person be interested in your reasons for a belief unless to
> consider whether they were good reasons why he should accept it?

To understand how they tick.

(That's how I give that information if I do, and how I take it when
given to me as long as it isn't formed in a way that leaves me thinking
they were trying to convince me.)

Just as I would give information about an SF setting, to then ask for
ideas about one problem or another. The setting has to be known before a
question can be considered. To consider it in the appropriate light.

(The idea to change my mind doesn't enter the process, because only I
can do that, when I decide to do so. Someone else trying will only
trigger stubborness, dig my heels in.)

> I can imagine an anthropologist enquiring of some primitive whose
> world view was obviously wildly wrong why he held certain beliefs
> based on that world view--or the primitive asking an analogous
> question of the anthropologist, knowing that the anthropologist is
> obvious delusionary, since he doesn't share the primitive's world
> view--but that isn't the pattern of ordinary conversation.

Actually, the analogy is pretty appropriate; two worlds colliding, both
thinking they're right, and one trying to convince the other failing,
perhaps one not even trying to convince, only showing their world to
give a basis for understanding their conclusions.

They don't talk on the same ground.

You may not want that to be the base for ordinary conversation, but that
wish doesn't make it true. You assuming people talk for same reasons and
in the same way as you is neglecting the reality that people don't
necessarily do.

<snip>

>> When you have an environment where you are certain that the person
>> you are talking to respects your ability to draw sensible
>> conclusions from the data (hard and soft) you are presented, you do
>> not have a 'rude and uncivil' environment, on the contrary.

> But then, stating one's conclusions without offering reasons for
> them, which I think is what James is describing, strongly suggests
> that one doesn't respect the other person's ability to draw sensible
> conclusions from the data.

I disagree.

The idea that the other person gets to draw sensible conclusions from
the data doesn't have to enter anywhere. Not when one isn't trying to
convince anyone of the conclusions. They can be given solely as a 'here
is where I stand' as a fact to live with, forget, agree with or
disagree, it doesn't matter any which way, to provide information about
the ground they talk on, to then continue with those interested. It's
simply a piece of information about the person.

Like saying a chair is green, no need to go into detail of where the
paint came from or how it was made, to consider whether it would fit
into your kitchen. Even for people who want to know whether it was
environment-friendly materials used to build that chair; that that
information isn't given alone says something (my conclusion would be
that it doesn't fit into the kitchen of anyone who cares about the
details on materials). And as we're talking about people, not chairs, no
one has an intrinsic right to be given someone else's data, that can
only be offered, or asked for and then denied or given.

Just because you might like to know the data doesn't mean you get it,
and you just get to think of the response what you will.

IMO, only refusing to give non-personal, non-difficult to give
information if asked (like the time, or the end of a movie) is rude.
Personal information is private, to share at the will of the holder.
(Just like one can't demand everyone runs around naked just because one
thinks it's ok; it's their decision to share.)

--
Tina
"But that's no fun at all. How can we subjugate the alien races --
or fight against the monstrous alien hordes -- if there aren't any
aliens?" -- Sea Wasp on rec.arts.sf.composition

Catja Pafort <green_knight@greenknight.org.uk.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

> Take 'the world was created in six days'. This is a personal belief,
> and there is nothing 'obviously wildly wrong' about it - _until_ you
> use it to try and explain the fossil record.

Except there's no basis to think that, fossils or no.

I just think that is a bad example; who would think that, all on their
own?

Sure, someone wrote that down, perhaps to explain the world as it was
then, perhaps to tell a fairy tale. Today, those people aren't around to
ask, or examine their credibility and motivations. They could have had
the personality of any one regular of rasfc (I suggest to picture each
in that position), or some other from a range that covers pleasant as
well as ugly characters (mindsets).

Thus my objection; who would think that today? Without being told by
folks who were told by folks who were told... What's the basis for
thinking that independently? Would anyone even get that thought,
independently?

I think if anyone did, it would of course be 'obviously wildly wrong' to
the rest of the world. Just like a personal belief that Xom made the
world out of a couple of dice; there's no basis to believe that (even if
you're familiar with the roguelike game Crawl).

(I'm just objecting to the example. All else you said is very much
something I'd "AoL", perhaps that's why I do object.)

--
Tina
>> Why not an alien race that truly is alien?
> Like the Teletubbies?
No, those are demons from hell. -- seen in rec.arts.sf.tv

David Friedman wrote:
> In article
> <1ii7j3q.1djuh2n1fwz0ceN%green_knight@greenknight.o rg.uk.invalid>,
> green_knight@greenknight.org.uk.invalid (Catja Pafort) wrote:
>
>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>
>>> Disagreement without attempt to persuade is rude and uncivil.
>> That's a bit of a culture shock there. For me, and I suppose many
>> others, disagreement without attempt to persuade is an exchange of
>> ideas, a _discussion_, and it serves many purposes.
>>
>> The effect of someone politely setting out why they believe a particular
>> stance while fully respecting my right to - based on my experience and
>> any evidence I have come across - form a different opinino of my own -
>> is that I will not view them as overbearing or manipulative, but rather
>> as interested in discussing a topic.
>
> At the point where they have set out the why, they are attempting to
> persuade--or at least, that's the most obvious reason to. Why would the
> other person be interested in your reasons for a belief unless to
> consider whether they were good reasons why he should accept it?

Okay, well, that settles it. I can't engage in argument with someone
who thinks a bunch of people with different opinions who accept the
existence of each other's different opinions and reasons therefore
without trying to change anything, is some kind of problem that needs to
be fixed.

Aqua

On 2008-06-09, Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
>> In article
>> <1ii7j3q.1djuh2n1fwz0ceN%green_knight@greenknight.o rg.uk.invalid>,
>> green_knight@greenknight.org.uk.invalid (Catja Pafort) wrote:
>>
>>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>>
>>>> Disagreement without attempt to persuade is rude and uncivil.
>>> That's a bit of a culture shock there. For me, and I suppose many
>>> others, disagreement without attempt to persuade is an exchange of
>>> ideas, a _discussion_, and it serves many purposes.
>>>
>>> The effect of someone politely setting out why they believe a particular
>>> stance while fully respecting my right to - based on my experience and
>>> any evidence I have come across - form a different opinino of my own -
>>> is that I will not view them as overbearing or manipulative, but rather
>>> as interested in discussing a topic.
>>
>> At the point where they have set out the why, they are attempting to
>> persuade--or at least, that's the most obvious reason to. Why would the
>> other person be interested in your reasons for a belief unless to
>> consider whether they were good reasons why he should accept it?
>
> Okay, well, that settles it. I can't engage in argument with someone
> who thinks a bunch of people with different opinions who accept the
> existence of each other's different opinions and reasons therefore
> without trying to change anything, is some kind of problem that needs to
> be fixed.

You can't debate those who want to know the truth, and think others want
to know the truth?

--
Aaron Denney
-><-

Aaron Denney wrote:
> On 2008-06-09, Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
>> David Friedman wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <1ii7j3q.1djuh2n1fwz0ceN%green_knight@greenknight.o rg.uk.invalid>,
>>> green_knight@greenknight.org.uk.invalid (Catja Pafort) wrote:
>>>
>>>> James A. Donald wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Disagreement without attempt to persuade is rude and uncivil.
>>>> That's a bit of a culture shock there. For me, and I suppose many
>>>> others, disagreement without attempt to persuade is an exchange of
>>>> ideas, a _discussion_, and it serves many purposes.
>>>>
>>>> The effect of someone politely setting out why they believe a particular
>>>> stance while fully respecting my right to - based on my experience and
>>>> any evidence I have come across - form a different opinino of my own -
>>>> is that I will not view them as overbearing or manipulative, but rather
>>>> as interested in discussing a topic.
>>> At the point where they have set out the why, they are attempting to
>>> persuade--or at least, that's the most obvious reason to. Why would the
>>> other person be interested in your reasons for a belief unless to
>>> consider whether they were good reasons why he should accept it?
>> Okay, well, that settles it. I can't engage in argument with someone
>> who thinks a bunch of people with different opinions who accept the
>> existence of each other's different opinions and reasons therefore
>> without trying to change anything, is some kind of problem that needs to
>> be fixed.
>
> You can't debate those who want to know the truth, and think others want
> to know the truth?

That's not what I said. The truth may very well be that there's a bunch
of people with different opinions etc.

I think it's pretty damn clear that most of the arguments David gets
himself into, involve an underlying dispute about the correct/legitimate
assumptions that can be taken into the discussion. The fact that David
can't persuade very many people that his set of assumptions is the
correct one should tell him something.

Aqua

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 21:59:32 +0100, Catja Pafort
<green_knight@greenknight.org.uk.invalid> wrote in
<news:1ii8gt4.z5nvb13t1xotN%green_knight@greenknigh t.org.uk.invalid>
in rec.arts.sf.misc:

> David Friedman wrote:

>> green_knight@greenknight.org.uk.invalid (Catja Pafort)
>> wrote:

>>> The effect of someone politely setting out why they
>>> believe a particular stance while fully respecting my
>>> right to - based on my experience and any evidence I
>>> have come across - form a different opinino of my own -
>>> is that I will not view them as overbearing or
>>> manipulative, but rather as interested in discussing a
>>> topic.

>> At the point where they have set out the why, they are
>> attempting to persuade--

> That might be what you are doing. It is not what I am
> doing. In this world of very varied opinions, I am
> setting out my experiences and my conclusions so you can
> understand where I am coming from. [...]

>>or at least, that's the most obvious reason to.

> Obvious to you, who has grown up with combative
> argumentation. Trust me, that is not why I explain where
> I'm coming from.

It isn't even obvious to me, and I grew up in an
argumentative and very verbal family and have been known to
exhibit David-like characteristics on occasion. On more
than a few occasions, actually. But I think that we argued
mostly for sport.

[...]

>> Why would the other person be interested in your reasons
>> for a belief unless to consider whether they were good
>> reasons why he should accept it?

> Because they want to have a conversation with me. Because
> they are interested in how people arrive at opinions that
> make absolutely no sense to them. [...]

Or even just general curiosity.

Brian

In article <h9buh5-ea8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:

> > At the point where they have set out the why, they are attempting to
> > persuade--or at least, that's the most obvious reason to. Why would the
> > other person be interested in your reasons for a belief unless to
> > consider whether they were good reasons why he should accept it?
>
> Okay, well, that settles it. I can't engage in argument with someone
> who thinks a bunch of people with different opinions who accept the
> existence of each other's different opinions and reasons therefore
> without trying to change anything, is some kind of problem that needs to
> be fixed.

Solved, not fixed. The fact that different people have different
opinions about the same subject means that at least some of the opinions
are mistaken, and that is a puzzle that there are obvious reasons to
want to solve, at least if you prefer not to hold mistaken opinions.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now

In article <hsjuh5-fd8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:

> > You can't debate those who want to know the truth, and think others want
> > to know the truth?
>
> That's not what I said. The truth may very well be that there's a bunch
> of people with different opinions etc.

That's one truth, and a pretty obvious one. But if the opinions are
about something, then there is another truth at issue--the truth of the
various opinions.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now

David Friedman wrote:
> In article <hsjuh5-fd8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
> Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>>> You can't debate those who want to know the truth, and think others want
>>> to know the truth?
>> That's not what I said. The truth may very well be that there's a bunch
>> of people with different opinions etc.
>
> That's one truth, and a pretty obvious one. But if the opinions are
> about something, then there is another truth at issue--the truth of the
> various opinions.

I dispute the notion that in most of the cases under consideration
there's "a truth" in any meaningful sense.

Aqua

David Friedman wrote:
> In article <h9buh5-ea8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
> Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>>> At the point where they have set out the why, they are attempting to
>>> persuade--or at least, that's the most obvious reason to. Why would the
>>> other person be interested in your reasons for a belief unless to
>>> consider whether they were good reasons why he should accept it?
>> Okay, well, that settles it. I can't engage in argument with someone
>> who thinks a bunch of people with different opinions who accept the
>> existence of each other's different opinions and reasons therefore
>> without trying to change anything, is some kind of problem that needs to
>> be fixed.
>
> Solved, not fixed. The fact that different people have different
> opinions about the same subject means that at least some of the opinions
> are mistaken, and that is a puzzle that there are obvious reasons to
> want to solve, at least if you prefer not to hold mistaken opinions.

I think I had an attitude somewhat resembling this when I was - I don't
know exactly, but I'm pretty sure younger than ten. I grew up.

I think if my eyes roll any harder about your attitude, they are likely
to fall out of my head.

Aqua

David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

> In article
> <1ii7j3q.1djuh2n1fwz0ceN%green_knight@greenknight.o rg.uk.invalid>,
> green_knight@greenknight.org.uk.invalid (Catja Pafort) wrote:
>
> > James A. Donald wrote:
> >
> > > Disagreement without attempt to persuade is rude and uncivil.
> >
> > That's a bit of a culture shock there. For me, and I suppose many
> > others, disagreement without attempt to persuade is an exchange of
> > ideas, a _discussion_, and it serves many purposes.
> >
> > The effect of someone politely setting out why they believe a particular
> > stance while fully respecting my right to - based on my experience and
> > any evidence I have come across - form a different opinino of my own -
> > is that I will not view them as overbearing or manipulative, but rather
> > as interested in discussing a topic.
>
> At the point where they have set out the why, they are attempting to
> persuade--

Good Lord, no!

>or at least, that's the most obvious reason to. Why would the
> other person be interested in your reasons for a belief unless to
> consider whether they were good reasons why he should accept it?

<blink> Well, because we're authors I can give the obvious reason:
that it might come in useful when trying to portray a believable
character who doesn't believe the same as the writer.

Alternatively... to demonstrate that they respect the person and their
opinions even if they disagree with same.

Or even... because it's interesting.

<snip>
> But then, stating one's conclusions without offering reasons for them,
> which I think is what James is describing, strongly suggests that one
> doesn't respect the other person's ability to draw sensible conclusions
> from the data.

No, it suggests "Interesting that you think X; for myself I think Y; but
let's not get into a huge debate about it; lovely weather we're having
innit?"

Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html

David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

> In article <h9buh5-ea8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
> Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
> > Okay, well, that settles it. I can't engage in argument with someone
> > who thinks a bunch of people with different opinions who accept the
> > existence of each other's different opinions and reasons therefore
> > without trying to change anything, is some kind of problem that needs to
> > be fixed.
>
> Solved, not fixed. The fact that different people have different
> opinions about the same subject means that at least some of the opinions
> are mistaken,
<snip>

Not necessarily.

Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html

In article <MSGID_2=3A240=2F2199.13=40fidonet_5544e92c@fidonet .org>,
Tina_Hall@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:

> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
> >>> At the point where they have set out the why, they are attempting
> >>> to persuade--or at least, that's the most obvious reason to. Why
> >>> would the other person be interested in your reasons for a belief
> >>> unless to consider whether they were good reasons why he should
> >>> accept it?
> >>
> >> Okay, well, that settles it. I can't engage in argument with
> >> someone who thinks a bunch of people with different opinions who
> >> accept the existence of each other's different opinions and reasons
> >> therefore without trying to change anything, is some kind of problem
> >> that needs to be fixed.
>
> > Solved, not fixed.
>
> Same difference; you don't want to accept other people having different
> opinions. You think it's a problem.

Their having different opinions isn't the problem. The problem is
figuring out which opinion is correct. The existence of different
opinions is merely the situation that raises it.

> > The fact that different people have different opinions about the same
> > subject means that at least some of the opinions are mistaken, and
> > that is a puzzle that there are obvious reasons to want to solve,
>
> Obvious to you maybe. But you seem to repeatedly miss the rather obvious
> fact that other people don't necessarily agree with you, your worldview,
> your attitude to discussions and exchanging conclusions and data, and
> that a number of people don't want to change any of that. They might
> even think that your approach is mistaken.

They might. And they are welcome to try to persuade me of it.

> (I, personally, think your repeated attempt in this thread to sell your
> attitude as the reasonable one others should follow as mistaken.)
>
> > at least if you prefer not to hold mistaken opinions.
>
> Eh, are you saying others think they hold mistaken opinions?

No. I am saying that if two or more people hold inconsistent opinions on
a subject, at least one of them is mistaken, and if you are one of those
people and prefer not to hold mistaken opinions, the obvious thing to do
is to look at the reasons for the various alternative views and try to
figure out which is correct.

....

> But some people like to party, and some people think partying would be a
> waste of time. Some people like to climb mountains, and some people
> think that silly. Some people even don't like chocolate, or <gasp> cats!

You are now referring to tastes. I was referring to opinions about
matters of fact. It's possible that you like partying and I don't. It
isn't possible that your opinion that earth is (say) getting warmer and
my opinion that (say) it isn't are both true--although, of course, we
might have to specify our opinions more precisely to get them in a form
where the inconsistency was clear.


....

> _That_ is a puzzle. How _do_ you manage to evade considering that other
> people don't even approach a discussion the same way, and don't want to
> change their approach, never mind accepting that their views are
> different without the need to change theirs or yours?

Part of the answer is that I think a lot of people regard an argument as
synonymous with a quarrel, and changing their opinions is somehow a loss
of status. One of my recent posts linked to someone's blog post
discussing that.

....

> You can of course continue trying. I'd like to know why you would,
> though. What's the point when it'll fail, simply because people disagree
> with there being something to solve in the first place?

Part of the answer is that, as my comments above may suggest, I'm not at
all sure the view you are disagreeing with is the same as the view I am
arguing for.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now

In article <1iia6o0.2224az1504ro3N%zeborah@gmail.com>,
zeborah@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:

> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <h9buh5-ea8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
> > Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, well, that settles it. I can't engage in argument with someone
> > > who thinks a bunch of people with different opinions who accept the
> > > existence of each other's different opinions and reasons therefore
> > > without trying to change anything, is some kind of problem that needs to
> > > be fixed.
> >
> > Solved, not fixed. The fact that different people have different
> > opinions about the same subject means that at least some of the opinions
> > are mistaken,
> <snip>
>
> Not necessarily.

Necessarily if "opinions about the same subject" refers to factual
beliefs, as I think it does in this discussion. Obviously you can think
that saffron tastes good and I can think it doesn't without being
mistaken, but that's because the more complete statement would be that
you think it tastes good to you--which I don't disagree with--and
similarly mutatis mutandis for my thinking it tastes bad.

But I don't see how we can both be right if we hold inconsistent factual
beliefs--although we can both be wrong, of course. Doesn't that follow
from the fact that the real world exists, and both your beliefs and mine
are about it?

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now

In article <1ii9aki.dtegx910q79ekN%zeborah@gmail.com>,
zeborah@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:

> >or at least, that's the most obvious reason to. Why would the
> > other person be interested in your reasons for a belief unless to
> > consider whether they were good reasons why he should accept it?
>
> <blink> Well, because we're authors I can give the obvious reason:
> that it might come in useful when trying to portray a believable
> character who doesn't believe the same as the writer.
>
> Alternatively... to demonstrate that they respect the person and their
> opinions even if they disagree with same.
>
> Or even... because it's interesting.
>

I suppose all of those are possible, although I'm not sure how
"interested in" implies "respect for." And to me, the (presumably
unstated) approach of "I would like to understand your ideas so that I
can create a character who holds the same sort of mistaken beliefs you
do" doesn't seem particularly respectful, although it makes some sense
from the author's point of view.

I would think what shows respect is taking the other person's beliefs
seriously, and so trying to figure out whether they, your beliefs, or
some third alternative set are correct.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now

In article <4l2vh5-ni8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:

> David Friedman wrote:
> > In article <h9buh5-ea8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
> > Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> At the point where they have set out the why, they are attempting to
> >>> persuade--or at least, that's the most obvious reason to. Why would the
> >>> other person be interested in your reasons for a belief unless to
> >>> consider whether they were good reasons why he should accept it?
> >> Okay, well, that settles it. I can't engage in argument with someone
> >> who thinks a bunch of people with different opinions who accept the
> >> existence of each other's different opinions and reasons therefore
> >> without trying to change anything, is some kind of problem that needs to
> >> be fixed.
> >
> > Solved, not fixed. The fact that different people have different
> > opinions about the same subject means that at least some of the opinions
> > are mistaken, and that is a puzzle that there are obvious reasons to
> > want to solve, at least if you prefer not to hold mistaken opinions.
>
> I think I had an attitude somewhat resembling this when I was - I don't
> know exactly, but I'm pretty sure younger than ten. I grew up.

And you no longer care whether or not what you believe is true?

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now

In article <gf2vh5-ni8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:

> David Friedman wrote:
> > In article <hsjuh5-fd8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
> > Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> You can't debate those who want to know the truth, and think others want
> >>> to know the truth?
> >> That's not what I said. The truth may very well be that there's a bunch
> >> of people with different opinions etc.
> >
> > That's one truth, and a pretty obvious one. But if the opinions are
> > about something, then there is another truth at issue--the truth of the
> > various opinions.
>
> I dispute the notion that in most of the cases under consideration
> there's "a truth" in any meaningful sense.

No truth about global warming? Historical questions? How well
alternative health care systems work? How murderous various governments
were?

Or were you thinking about a different sort of question?

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now

In message <gf2vh5-ni8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>, Aqua
<aqua@internode.on.net> writes
>David Friedman wrote:
>> In article <hsjuh5-fd8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
>> Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> You can't debate those who want to know the truth, and think others
>>>>want
>>>> to know the truth?
>>> That's not what I said. The truth may very well be that there's a
>>>bunch of people with different opinions etc.
>> That's one truth, and a pretty obvious one. But if the opinions are
>>about something, then there is another truth at issue--the truth of
>>the various opinions.
>
>I dispute the notion that in most of the cases under consideration
>there's "a truth" in any meaningful sense.
>
Seconded!

Also there's a serious rift between what I might call the ideologues and
the pragmatists. Some people seem to be convinced that I'm a
dyed-in-the-wool Socialist, but I've never belonged to a political
party, hold no firm views on what political system works best, but I do
know what seems to work in practice and what doesn't.

Anyone who sets out with the sole intention of trying to change my
opinions is arguing against my lifetime's experience of what seems to
work and what doesn't. This (as has been said elsewhere by others), is
not subject to change on the basis of a purely intellectual argument in
a discussion in a public forum on a newsgroup. For one thing I don't
have the time or the inclination to go chasing up a load of data. And
anyway, as Catja has said, just plucking stats off the Internet is
useless. It would take a proper analysis of the situation, looking at
how the data had been gathered etc etc before figures can be deemed
meaningful and appropriate. More importantly, a lot of the evidence I
might, in other circumstances, want to bring to bear is too personal and
not something I would discuss in public, so I feel the battle is very
unequal.

It also raises the very serious problem that has also been mentioned in
passing. I am not a skilled debater. I would never claim to be one and I
have no wish to become one either. I'm a teacher of practical subjects
who writes fiction and takes photographs. Arguing whether a free market
capitalist model or a socialist model produces a better health service
is not helpful to me in any way and it's a stupid waste of time trying
to make me debate it.

Besides, assuming I am drawn in and I lose the debate, does that
actually change the reality out there in the world? Does it change my
views? No, it just means that I can't win an intellectual argument
against someone who enjoys that kind of thing and who has been doing it
all his life, which is not the same thing at all.

Might is not always right.

Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk

In message <ddfr-2D27CE.22464508062008@CA.NEWS.VERIO.NET>, David
Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>In article <h9buh5-ea8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
> Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>> > At the point where they have set out the why, they are attempting to
>> > persuade--or at least, that's the most obvious reason to. Why would the
>> > other person be interested in your reasons for a belief unless to
>> > consider whether they were good reasons why he should accept it?
>>
>> Okay, well, that settles it. I can't engage in argument with someone
>> who thinks a bunch of people with different opinions who accept the
>> existence of each other's different opinions and reasons therefore
>> without trying to change anything, is some kind of problem that needs to
>> be fixed.
>
>Solved, not fixed. The fact that different people have different
>opinions about the same subject means that at least some of the opinions
>are mistaken,

No, it doesn't. Surely you're familiar with the old story about the
blind men and the elephant?

Well, what we usually have in these pointless arguments in rasfc is an
elephant and some people who won't admit that they've got hold of the
tail where others are feeling the trunk.

>and that is a puzzle that there are obvious reasons to
>want to solve, at least if you prefer not to hold mistaken opinions.
>
Your binary way of thinking is very limiting and again part of the
problem. Opinions don't just come in right/wrong.

Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk

David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:

>>> At the point where they have set out the why, they are attempting
>>> to persuade--or at least, that's the most obvious reason to. Why
>>> would the other person be interested in your reasons for a belief
>>> unless to consider whether they were good reasons why he should
>>> accept it?
>>
>> Okay, well, that settles it. I can't engage in argument with
>> someone who thinks a bunch of people with different opinions who
>> accept the existence of each other's different opinions and reasons
>> therefore without trying to change anything, is some kind of problem
>> that needs to be fixed.

> Solved, not fixed.

Same difference; you don't want to accept other people having different
opinions. You think it's a problem.

> The fact that different people have different opinions about the same
> subject means that at least some of the opinions are mistaken, and
> that is a puzzle that there are obvious reasons to want to solve,

Obvious to you maybe. But you seem to repeatedly miss the rather obvious
fact that other people don't necessarily agree with you, your worldview,
your attitude to discussions and exchanging conclusions and data, and
that a number of people don't want to change any of that. They might
even think that your approach is mistaken.

(I, personally, think your repeated attempt in this thread to sell your
attitude as the reasonable one others should follow as mistaken.)

> at least if you prefer not to hold mistaken opinions.

Eh, are you saying others think they hold mistaken opinions?

Because it is my impression that people think _others_ have the mistaken
opinions (it's what I think when they don't agree with mine), and just
don't care about spreading their view the way you seem to want to. Some
people even call that tolerant; accepting that others think differently
and living with them in peace despite not agreeing on everything. (Yet
you seem to want everyone to have the same opinions on all matters.
Yours or theirs, as long as everyone sits in the same pot.)

But some people like to party, and some people think partying would be a
waste of time. Some people like to climb mountains, and some people
think that silly. Some people even don't like chocolate, or <gasp> cats!

And that isn't even getting into modern media tolerance, like with BDSM,
where it's fashionable to accept all sorts of weird kinks as normal
rather than thinking at least the masochists deranged and in need of
therapy. (Where I at least think there is a One Truth, rather than it
all being a matter of preference/taste. I just don't care to discuss
that.)

And don't circle back to 'but if they look at it the way I do, and think
the way I do, they'll see it as reasonable to examine their opinions, if
I only give them facts'; we were there already. People still don't think
the way you would like them to. That's one of the things you're not
going to change, either.

People have their opinions, and attitudes to these discussions. They
think they're right.

One of your opinions is that being open to change and persuasion is
reasonable.

Other people think differently.

You think there's a problem, and the best approach would be to think the
way you do; get rid of the disagreement one way or the other.

They prefer their own approach, don't see a problem in differing
opinions.

You're not going to get anywhere, no matter how you turn it, it always
gets back to that; other people don't necessarily think the way you
consider reasonable.

Your continued attempt to argue your cause looks increasingly
unreasonable to me, personally. In this one special case, I don't even
think less of you, or resort to (internal) name-calling. (I usually do
when people don't hold my opinion. <g>) In this particular case I see a
kind of pattern, a rididity, perhaps even an inability to accept the
rather big, global fact that other people think differently, not just
opinions but attitudes and approaches as well. That you always fall back
on your 'I see it this way, and it is reasonable for everyone else to
see it this way, too' is even interesting, in a strange way.

For me it means I have a vague feeling of where you stand, and it is a
mystery how something so obvious can be repeatedly ignored. I don't
think it's willful.

_That_ is a puzzle. How _do_ you manage to evade considering that other
people don't even approach a discussion the same way, and don't want to
change their approach, never mind accepting that their views are
different without the need to change theirs or yours?

I know this might sound as if I were trying to change your view; I
don't. I'm just trying to give you a bit of data which obviously doesn't
arrive. You can keep your view, you can keep thinking your approach is
reasonable. You're just not going to convince everyone. Not even of the
idea that having different opinions and approaches is a problem to
solve.

If you like, you can assume everyone who disagrees with your approach is
an idiot, and just treat them politely for the gain other discussions
might have; they might be wrong, but they can still have interesting
ideas, helpful suggestions, regardless of the stance they have on any
one subject (including the subject of how to treat differing opinions).

You can of course continue trying. I'd like to know why you would,
though. What's the point when it'll fail, simply because people disagree
with there being something to solve in the first place?

--
Tina
Don't throw links at me. Internet requires a reboot and costs money. If
I want one, I'll ask, and otherwise not bother to look at whatever it is.
To Hell with internet. ### XP v3.40 RC3 ###

David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

> In article <1ii9aki.dtegx910q79ekN%zeborah@gmail.com>,
> zeborah@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:
>
> > >or at least, that's the most obvious reason to. Why would the
> > > other person be interested in your reasons for a belief unless to
> > > consider whether they were good reasons why he should accept it?
> >
> > <blink> Well, because we're authors I can give the obvious reason:
> > that it might come in useful when trying to portray a believable
> > character who doesn't believe the same as the writer.
> >
> > Alternatively... to demonstrate that they respect the person and their
> > opinions even if they disagree with same.
> >
> > Or even... because it's interesting.
>
> I suppose all of those are possible, although I'm not sure how
> "interested in" implies "respect for." And to me, the (presumably
> unstated) approach of "I would like to understand your ideas so that I
> can create a character who holds the same sort of mistaken beliefs you
> do" doesn't seem particularly respectful, although it makes some sense
> from the author's point of view.

Well, firstly I didn't say they were mutually compatible reasons.

Secondly, I don't always believe that someone whose beliefs I don't
share is "mistaken" in them even if I believe my own beliefs are good
ones.

Thirdly, even if I do believe their beliefs are mistaken, I can still
respect their reasons for holding the beliefs. I can also desire to
portray respectfully a character who shares the beliefs. And portraying
such a character respectfully is a way of behaving respectfully towards
the real world people who have the same beliefs. (This is particularly
the case when my writing requires a person with those specific beliefs.)

> I would think what shows respect is taking the other person's beliefs
> seriously, and so trying to figure out whether they, your beliefs, or
> some third alternative set are correct.

a) Your definition of "taking them seriously" as "attempting to
dismantle them in order to figure out whether or not they're utter
codswallop"(1) is an idiosyncratic one. Another definition might be
"accepting them as things which may or may not bear a relation to
reality but are still important to the person who believes them and
therefore may be left in peace".

b) You appear to think that what shows respect is treating people as you
would like to be treated without any regard for their stated preferences
of how they would like to be treated. This is not what I consider to be
the optimal version of the Golden Rule.

Zeborah
(1) I'm sure this isn't how you view what you're doing. It's how I view
it. We may well both be right. Coins have two sides, but that doesn't
mean one side is wrong.
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html

David Friedman wrote:
> In article <gf2vh5-ni8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
> Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>> David Friedman wrote:
>>> In article <hsjuh5-fd8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
>>> Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You can't debate those who want to know the truth, and think others want
>>>>> to know the truth?
>>>> That's not what I said. The truth may very well be that there's a bunch
>>>> of people with different opinions etc.
>>> That's one truth, and a pretty obvious one. But if the opinions are
>>> about something, then there is another truth at issue--the truth of the
>>> various opinions.
>> I dispute the notion that in most of the cases under consideration
>> there's "a truth" in any meaningful sense.
>
> No truth about global warming? Historical questions? How well
> alternative health care systems work? How murderous various governments
> were?

There's a bunch of data. There's the issues of how that data was
collected, and what data hasn't been collected, or lost.

Then there's the issue of how one turns that data into "truth".

And how long the process will take, and what other things one might want
to do with one's time.

Aqua

David Friedman wrote:
> In article <4l2vh5-ni8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
> Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>> David Friedman wrote:
>>> In article <h9buh5-ea8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
>>> Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> At the point where they have set out the why, they are attempting to
>>>>> persuade--or at least, that's the most obvious reason to. Why would the
>>>>> other person be interested in your reasons for a belief unless to
>>>>> consider whether they were good reasons why he should accept it?
>>>> Okay, well, that settles it. I can't engage in argument with someone
>>>> who thinks a bunch of people with different opinions who accept the
>>>> existence of each other's different opinions and reasons therefore
>>>> without trying to change anything, is some kind of problem that needs to
>>>> be fixed.
>>> Solved, not fixed. The fact that different people have different
>>> opinions about the same subject means that at least some of the opinions
>>> are mistaken, and that is a puzzle that there are obvious reasons to
>>> want to solve, at least if you prefer not to hold mistaken opinions.
>> I think I had an attitude somewhat resembling this when I was - I don't
>> know exactly, but I'm pretty sure younger than ten. I grew up.
>
> And you no longer care whether or not what you believe is true?

No, I grew up, and began to understand the extent to which "the truth"
is something extremely complex which people pretend is simple,
straightforward and obvious. I think because it upsets them that "the
truth" isn't knowable. That's just the best explanation I've come up
with, though, and I'm sure the exact reasons vary from person to person.

And as I grow older, I continue to learn more and more layers of
complexity, making "the truth" seem more and more like a label stuck to
an illusion.

Aqua

In message <ddfr-F2058D.01202909062008@CA.NEWS.VERIO.NET>, David
Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>In article <gf2vh5-ni8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
> Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>> David Friedman wrote:
>> > In article <hsjuh5-fd8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
>> > Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> You can't debate those who want to know the truth, and think others want
>> >>> to know the truth?
>> >> That's not what I said. The truth may very well be that there's a bunch
>> >> of people with different opinions etc.
>> >
>> > That's one truth, and a pretty obvious one. But if the opinions are
>> > about something, then there is another truth at issue--the truth of the
>> > various opinions.
>>
>> I dispute the notion that in most of the cases under consideration
>> there's "a truth" in any meaningful sense.
>
>No truth about global warming?

Not one simply grasped truth, no. Likewise there is no easy way to
arrive at a yes/no, good/bad answer. There's plenty of evidence as to an
overall rise in temperature. What the cause of this is open to dispute
and the truth is there are probably several factors in play, one of
which is the activity of human beings. Is it a good or bad thing?
There'll be winners and losers. Whether it's good or bad largely depends
on where you live and how easily you can adapt to change.

So, no. There is no "truth" about global warming. There are many truths
and many misunderstandings and possibly even downright falsehoods.

However, there's nothing about global warming that could be profitably
discussed in a newsgroup dedicated to writing SF, other then in a
general way in response to someone saying they're writing a story set
150 years in the future and what sort of things should they include re
likely changes to climate.

My husband has just completed a PhD and climate change and though it's
about flooding and rainfall patterns, global warming and its
implications was a large part of it. (Severe flood events won't get more
severe, but there'll be more off them. The 50 year storm might become a
7 year one.) Anyway, the complete thing can be seen here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/heleninwales/2385879994/

That's two copies, by the way! It was a duology not a quadrology. :)

In order to have a fully informed opinion on global warming, you would
need to read several such tomes by a number of different researchers --
oh, and there's lots of post-masters level maths in there. If you can't
understand that, you just have to take what the scientist is saying in
the abstract on trust.

>Historical questions? How well
>alternative health care systems work?

Things work as well as the people running them make them work. You can
have a crap national health service or you can have a good one, likewise
with privately funded medicine. The ideology behind it is almost
irrelevant. Unless you've had personal experience of lots of systems,
you have no way of knowing what treatment you are likely to get from any
given system.

>How murderous various governments
>were?
>
Have you ever been at some kind of event or incident and then read the
reports about it in the press/watched on TV? How much did they get
right? How will people in the future view that event?

With people having a vested interest on both sides with regard to
slanting stats in their favour, there is no way of determining any
simple "truth" without doing several years of serious research.

>Or were you thinking about a different sort of question?
>
No, I think those are enough to be going on with. :)

Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk

In message <ddfr-63857B.01153409062008@CA.NEWS.VERIO.NET>, David
Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>In article <1iia6o0.2224az1504ro3N%zeborah@gmail.com>,
> zeborah@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:
>
>> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <h9buh5-ea8.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,
>> > Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Okay, well, that settles it. I can't engage in argument with someone
>> > > who thinks a bunch of people with different opinions who accept the
>> > > existence of each other's different opinions and reasons therefore
>> > > without trying to change anything, is some kind of problem that needs to
>> > > be fixed.
>> >
>> > Solved, not fixed. The fact that different people have different
>> > opinions about the same subject means that at least some of the opinions
>> > are mistaken,
>> <snip>
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>
>Necessarily if "opinions about the same subject" refers to factual
>beliefs, as I think it does in this discussion. Obviously you can think
>that saffron tastes good and I can think it doesn't without being
>mistaken, but that's because the more complete statement would be that
>you think it tastes good to you--which I don't disagree with--and
>similarly mutatis mutandis for my thinking it tastes bad.
>
>But I don't see how we can both be right if we hold inconsistent factual
>beliefs--although we can both be wrong, of course. Doesn't that follow
>from the fact that the real world exists, and both your beliefs and mine
>are about it?
>
Neither of us is observing and experiencing the whole world, so it's
perfectly possible that both our opinions are true *for us*.

See other post about blind men and elephant.

Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk

Helen Hall <usenet@delete.this.baradel.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <ddfr-F2058D.01202909062008@CA.NEWS.VERIO.NET>, David
> Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
[No truth about...]
> >How murderous various governments
> >were?
> >
> Have you ever been at some kind of event or incident and then read the
> reports about it in the press/watched on TV?

At university I took part in a protest against a 45% fee hike. It was
tremendous fun. We chanted outside the Registry for a while, and the
organisers told us all about being a responsible peaceful protest and
how to not get arrested. Then someone got in the building (IIRC climbed
to the second floor and got in a window) and opened the doors for us.
We poured in, chanting all the while, marched peacefully up the stairs
to level 7 where the vice-chancellor has his cushy meetings with his
cushy carpet, and settled in to occupy it. The vice-chancellor and
staff had meanwhile vacated the premises via the back exit.

We got some great media coverage. We got free pizza the first evening
by ringing up a pizza company and saying, "Hey, if you deliver pizza to
us at 6pm it'll be on the national news." And they did and it was. (I
have a vague memory that part of this plan was my idea, but I'm
uncertain how reliable this memory is; it may just be me wishing I'd had
the idea. :-) ) And the media were totally for us -- for the first
couple of days. Then they got bored talking about the noble students
protesting unbearable hardship, or more to the point figured their
audience had got bored hearing about it, and they decided that reckless
students vandalising the law-abiding university's property made a much
better story. In the meantime the university had voted to make the fee
hike a mere 30%, so we cut our losses and went home.

So that was three histories of the same event.

Years later I met a woman who'd been working as a receptionist at the
Registry at the time. She recalled it as a terrifying event -- hordes
of students storming the building with who-knew-what intentions -- and
spoke of the aftermath of things that had to be tidied etc as well. It
was extremely disquieting to realise that I couldn't discount her
experience; that it was just as real and true as mine.


I wove that "multiple stories of the same event" into the central piece
of backstory of the Scandinavian book. The event gets told in some way
<counts> eight times by six people. Two of the tellings are true but
are lies. One of the tellings is a lie but is true. The others are all
true but not in all ways correct.


One of the best school assignments I ever had was when our history
teacher gave us a bunch of primary documents about the mutiny on the
Bounty and said, "Find evidence about this; about that; about the other.
And, now that you've read all the documents: who was to blame and why?"
So many different stories of the same event.

Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html

Helen Hall <usenet@delete.this.baradel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ddfr-2D27CE.22464508062008@CA.NEWS.VERIO.NET>, David
> Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
> >Solved, not fixed. The fact that different people have different
> >opinions about the same subject means that at least some of the opinions
> >are mistaken,

> No, it doesn't. Surely you're familiar with the old story about the
> blind men and the elephant?

The point of that story is that all of the blind men are wrong, not that
they are all right. Each, having only limited evidence, has reached a
false conclusion. There is, in fact, an elephant there. Not a rope: to
say "This is a rope" is mistaken. Not a wall: to say "This is a wall"
is mistaken. Not a fan, not a pipe, not a branch, not a pillar, not a
ploughshare, not a brush. These claims are all false. The claim "This
is an elephant" is true.

Having reached conflicting conclusions, the blind men then proceed
incorrectly, each one merely reasserting the evidence he has obtained
himself and he conclusion drawn from it, and ignoring the evidence
produced by the others. They compound the error by shouting and
fighting, processes which are not capable of getting at the truth. Thus
they are unable to arrive at the actual truth of the matter.

A wise man who has seen the whole elephant, and knows the actual truth
of the matter, points out to the blind men that all of their
observations were correct, but their interpretations were incorrect.
The wise man is right, and the blind men were all wrong. Thereupon they
relinquish their mistaken views and replace them by correct views.

Whether they are right to do so on nothing more than the say-so of
someone claiming to have the truth is another matter. Another point of
the story is to elevate one view -- Buddhism or Jainism, in the original
stories -- above all others without having to show any evidence for it.

The only application I can find to the present context is not that
everyone is right, but that everyone is wrong, but lack the presence of
such a wise man to show us the truth.

Unless someone is claiming to be the wise man. Any takers to make the
claim "I'm right, you're all wrong, but my vision is so far above yours
that if you won't just take my word for it there's no point in
discussing it"? And if not, in the absence of a source of revealed
truth, how should one proceed, now that there is this new forum
specifically for doing so?

--
Richard Kennaway

On 9 Jun, 13:03, drachirREVERSEEACHPARTTORE...@yawannek.gro.ku
(Richard Kennaway) wrote:
> Helen Hall <use...@delete.this.baradel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In message <ddfr-2D27CE.22464508062...@CA.NEWS.VERIO.NET>, David
> > Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
> > >Solved, not fixed. The fact that different people have different
> > >opinions about the same subject means that at least some of the opinions
> > >are mistaken,
> > No, it doesn't. Surely you're familiar with the old story about the
> > blind men and the elephant?
>
> The point of that story is that all of the blind men are wrong, not that
> they are all right.  Each, having only limited evidence, has reached a
> false conclusion.  There is, in fact, an elephant there.  Not a rope: to
> say "This is a rope" is mistaken.  Not a wall: to say "This is a wall"
> is mistaken.  Not a fan, not a pipe, not a branch, not a pillar, not a
> ploughshare, not a brush.  These claims are all false.  The claim "This
> is an elephant" is true.
>
This sound like the problem we've been having in rasfc.
>
> A wise man who has seen the whole elephant, and knows the actual truth
> of the matter, points out to the blind men that all of their
> observations were correct, but their interpretations were incorrect.
> The wise man is right, and the blind men were all wrong.  Thereupon they
> relinquish their mistaken views and replace them by correct views.
>
[snip]
> The only application I can find to the present context is not that
> everyone is right, but that everyone is wrong, but lack the presence of
> such a wise man to show us the truth.
>
Exactly! I would put us all in the category of blind men. Regarding
the kind of topics we get into arguments over, there isn't anyone I
would point at and say, "They can see the truth!"

Unfortunately several people seem to think they *do* fall into that
category, which only compounds the problem when we poor blind souls
refuse to accept their "authority". :)

Also note that in the story the wise man acknowleges that each
person's observation is correct but that they only have part of the
picture. However, David's intent is to prove us incorrect, which is
where it all founders.

Helen
--
http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk/

David Friedman wrote:

> Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
> > > You can't debate those who want to know the truth, and think others want
> > > to know the truth?
> >
> > That's not what I said. The truth may very well be that there's a bunch
> > of people with different opinions etc.
>
> That's one truth, and a pretty obvious one. But if the opinions are
> about something, then there is another truth at issue--the truth of the
> various opinions.

There isn't always a single truth which is valid for everybody. I've
been in debates where both sides had *extremely valid* arguments about
the pros and cons of their chosen stance. And both positives and
negatives were about equal, but side A regarded *their* negative
consequences as less likely to happen than side B's negative
consequences, and side B did the same.

The discussion allowed both sides to understand how the other side had
formed their opinion. And me, personally, I acquired a set of
circumstances during which I would take stance A _without thinking that
my reasons to believe B had been invalid, stupid, or wrong_. Note that
this is important. On top of being confirmed (in exchange with other
B'ers) that B was the right route for me to choose, I learnt to
appreciate the thought process that leads to A, and have expanded my
toolbox to include A under a certain defined set of circumstances.

And frankly, if at some point a member of either side had declared that
theirs was the only way, he'd have affected a very useful exchange of
ideas.

Admittedly, some opinions are more wrong than others, but if I am
holding a conversation with my friends, I am assuming that they are
intelligent people who just haven't seen all the data, and I shall point
it out. Or if they are clinging to a certain interpretation, I shall
point out that there are others. But none of it is _directed at them_, I
am merely providing information from which they can draw their own
conclusions; and being intelligent people, I am trusting them to draw
informed conclusions.

Which might not necessarily be my own, but they will be intelligent and
based on that person's experience.

And I expect of myself to do the same, and I *will* do it, although I
don't always announce the process on usenet, but I will be far more
fascinated by a topic and far more willing to invest time into it if
someone else makes knowing about it desirable. When I am attacked - when
my knowledge, my experience, or my ability to do research and draw
conclusions are under close scrutiny - I am far more likely to get
defensive; and I certainly will not draw on the other person's
experience as a starting point.


Catja

--
writing blog @ http://beyond-elechan.livejournal.com

David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

> Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
> > > At the point where they have set out the why, they are attempting to
> > > persuade--or at least, that's the most obvious reason to. Why would the
> > > other person be interested in your reasons for a belief unless to
> > > consider whether they were good reasons why he should accept it?
> >
> > Okay, well, that settles it. I can't engage in argument with someone
> > who thinks a bunch of people with different opinions who accept the
> > existence of each other's different opinions and reasons therefore
> > without trying to change anything, is some kind of problem that needs to
> > be fixed.
>
> Solved, not fixed. The fact that different people have different
> opinions about the same subject means that at least some of the opinions
> are mistaken, and that is a puzzle that there are obvious reasons to
> want to solve, at least if you prefer not to hold mistaken opinions.

But I don't hold mistaken opinions. I hold opinions that are based on my
experience and research. They're all my opinions for a reason. They
might not be the opinions you would arrive at, either from your own data
or mine, but they're perfectly good opinions.

Am I ever wrong? Rarely, because I *do* research topics to form my
opinion, I consider data (hard and soft), and I base my opinionion on
that. And I remain sceptical and test every hypothesis whether it fits
into the body of knowledge I have already amassed. And I *do* amend my
opinions, but my reasoning is remarkably sound in most cases.

You seem to operate from a One Truth philosophy - if three people have
three different opinions on a subject, two must be wrong.

I'm operating on the basis that all three could be wrong, or all three
could be right for their particular circumstances, and all three
probably have - and this will come out in the discussions - thought
their stance over and based their opinion on data they have carefully
considered, and it might be that all three hold a piece of the truth, or
are sharing a core belief that expresses in different ways, or...

I don't know that until I talk to them.


Catja

--
writing blog @ http://beyond-elechan.livejournal.com

David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

> zeborah@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:
>
> > David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >

> > > The fact that different people have different
> > > opinions about the same subject means that at least some of the opinions
> > > are mistaken,


> > Not necessarily.
>
> Necessarily if "opinions about the same subject" refers to factual
> beliefs, as I think it does in this discussion.

This comes back to my earlier point about few things being provable.
Never mind social sciences or biology, *physics* experiments suffer from
subjectivity: how they are devised, how stringently they are executed,
which results are counted and which are discarded as obviously flawed,
and how they are interpreted.

Move into any other topic, and you'll have tendencies, and things that
are more correct than others, but you're unlikely to find out 'the
truth' about anything, because there isn't such a thing.

> But I don't see how we can both be right if we hold inconsistent factual
> beliefs--although we can both be wrong, of course. Doesn't that follow
> from the fact that the real world exists, and both your beliefs and mine
> are about it?

I am boggled by the fact that you seem to believe that you know 'the
truth' about anything. Well, ok, anything other than broad strokes. I
believe that global warming is a reality and that it is at least a
partly man-made phenomenon. And I believe that it is a lot more
dangerous to ignore it and be wrong than it is to take action and be
wrong.

The first is coherent with the vast bulk of evidence about climate. You
have to *really* work hard at ignoring that evidence to deny a global
trend.

The second - the more you go into detail, the more you can debate about
each individual symptom, but when you go back to look at the wider
picture, it's pretty difficult to ignore the evidence. The last, on the
other hand, probably depends on your judgement about the relative costs
and difficulties of 'doing something', about the myriad ways in which
you can 'do something' (not everybody will be aware of all of them), and
how scary you find the dangers respectively how many dangers you are
aware of. Your opinion on that will depend on a lot of personal
judgements. In the light of the evidence I'm aware of, I might think
that you are wildly mistaken and I might wish to bring to your attention
a lot of evidence, but in the end, it's still your opinion.

Where I tend to get cranky is when people dismiss evidence because it
does not fit in with their ideology, or when they dismiss my conclusions
as irrelevant because their own - often based on a different dataset -
are different. And the answer in the second case is not to try to hit me
over the head with *your* data, although I shall wish to see and
evaluate it - but to show a willingness to view _mine_.


Catja

--
writing blog @ http://beyond-elechan.livejournal.com

In article <MSGID_2=3A240=2F2199.13=40fidonet_5544eb3b@fidonet .org>,
Tina_Hall@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:

> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
> >> David Friedman wrote:
> >>> Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> You can't debate those who want to know the truth, and think
> >>>>> others want to know the truth?
>
> >>>> That's not what I said. The truth may very well be that there's a
> >>>> bunch of people with different opinions etc.
> >>>
> >>> That's one truth, and a pretty obvious one. But if the opinions are
> >>> about something, then there is another truth at issue--the truth of
> >>> the various opinions.
> >>
> >> I dispute the notion that in most of the cases under consideration
> >> there's "a truth" in any meaningful sense.
>
> > No truth about global warming? Historical questions? How well
> > alternative health care systems work? How murderous various
> > governments were?
>
> Um, we're talking about 'the truth' of the right way to approach a
> discussion and alternate opinions.

But the discussions we are discussing the right way to deal with are
about questions of fact. I can easily enough imagine someone for whom my
approach to dealing with those discussions wasn't appropriate, most
obviously someone in the middle of doing something else urgent and
important who couldn't afford the time to work through reasons for
disagreement about something not very important to him.

> You suggest the right way is to exchange views with the goal to change
> one or the other opinion.
>
> Others disagree.

They not only disagree, they express incomprehension or hostility at the
idea.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now

David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> Tina_Hall@kruemel.org (Tina Hall) wrote:
>> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>> Aqua <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote:

>>>> Okay, well, that settles it. I can't engage in argument with
>>>> someone who thinks a bunch of people with different opinions who
>>>> accept the existence of each other's different opinions and
>>>> reasons therefore without trying to change anything, is some kind
>>>> of problem that needs to be fixed.
>>
>>> Solved, not fixed.
>>
>> Same difference; you don't want to accept other people having
>> different opinions. You think it's a problem.

> Their having different opinions isn't the problem. The problem is
> figuring out which opinion is correct. The existence of different
> opinions is merely the situation that raises it.

That it needs figuring out which opinion is correct is an opinion not
shared by everyone.

>>> The fact that different people have different opinions about the
>>> same subject means that at least some of the opinions are mistaken,
>>> and that is a puzzle that there are obvious reasons to want to
>>> solve,
>>
>> Obvious to you maybe. But you seem to repeatedly miss the rather
>> obvious fact that other people don't necessarily agree with you,
>> your worldview, your attitude to discussions and exchanging
>> conclusions and data, and that a number of people don't want to
>> change any of that. They might even think that your approach is
>> mistaken.

> They might. And they are welcome to try to persuade me of it.

They might not want to do that.

It might just be that your approach sits wrong with them, so they say
"Hey, stop that, it makes me feel uncomfortable."

Which you then approach in the same way, only now talking about this
objection. (Asking why it makes them feel uncomfortable, saying by what
you think reasonable they shouldn't, but you are open to hear their
arguments.)

But all that's left is to accept that they don't agree with you on even
this, and no good trying to talk about it.

"Stop hitting me." is a - for a good number of people I would guess - a
reasonable request. Could you view this particular request in the same
vein? Just stop it without them needing to elaborate, or trying to
convince you of the reasons for why they want you to stop?

I wouldn't assume it is the same for the people involved, but I can
imagine that for some it is. (On an emotional level.)

>>> at least if you prefer not to hold mistaken opinions.
>>
>> Eh, are you saying others think they hold mistaken opinions?

> No. I am saying that if two or more people hold inconsistent opinions
> on a subject, at least one of them is mistaken, and if you are one of
> those people and prefer not to hold mistaken opinions, the obvious
> thing to do is to look at the reasons for the various alternative
> views and try to figure out which is correct.

That is your opinion (obvious course), and one not shared by everyone.

I could only guess why others don't feel the need to figure out which is
correct.

For me, I'm convinced that it's not me who holds the mistaken opinions
(there's no 'one of us' uncertainty), and I can live with you holding
different views. Plus, you aren't in a position to change my view, only
I can do that, when I feel like it, in a way that your supplying data
doesn't agree with (you trying to concince me will do the opposite of
what you desire). Your approach is simply incompatible with my way to
change my opinion. (I like my way, and I'll keep it as long as I like
it, regardless of what anyone thinks of it.)

Discussing my views, with inadequate words, not schooled in the art of
discussing, it's tedious and, from experience, futile. I've sometimes
cheered you and others (when I agreed), for the elegant way to state the
facts (as I see them, too). It's a skill I don't have. I (as you may
notice here, too), ramble on, often repetitive, because I don't know how
to say it differently, without any elegance at all.

Perhaps in your environment, your approach has often proven to lead to
desirable results. I come from a corner (experiences) where trying is
futile, so I have learned to evade what for me is just a bog without any
desirable results at all. (I trust you've seen enough of that by me in
the past. Just think of my attempts to get recommendations for books,
failing to get across what I would like to read. Being subjected to
ridicule, accused of trolling, the nicer reactions being to simply give
in trying. And that wasn't even me trying to convince anyone, just
trying to present a particular view so people could suggest books that
matched that.)

Plus I lack the gene that's responsible for the wish to convert the
heathens. :) (I've only got the "megalomaniacally convinced" gene,
content to stand alone and sneer at the unenlightened masses. <g>)

>> But some people like to party, and some people think partying would
>> be a waste of time. Some people like to climb mountains, and some
>> people think that silly. Some people even don't like chocolate, or
>> <gasp> cats!

> You are now referring to tastes. I was referring to opinions about
> matters of fact.

How to approach a conversation, and view differing opinions, is like
that, though, not matters of fact.

> It's possible that you like partying and I don't. It isn't possible
> that your opinion that earth is (say) getting warmer and my opinion
> that (say) it isn't are both true--although, of course, we might have
> to specify our opinions more precisely to get them in a form where the
> inconsistency was clear.

The idea that we need to get to agree on either is yours, though. I'm of
the opinion that you are free to not hold the same opinion on that
matter as I do. It doesn't interfere with your potential ability to, for
ex