The Limits of Argument
-
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am
The Limits of Argument
Howard Darmstadter asks why rational debate doesn’t often change minds.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/142/The_Limits_of_Argument
https://philosophynow.org/issues/142/The_Limits_of_Argument
Re: The Limits of Argument
Because they couldn't find the right arguments.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Sun Feb 07, 2021 8:05 pm Howard Darmstadter asks why rational debate doesn’t often change minds.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/142/Th ... f_Argument
-
- Posts: 5182
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: The Limits of Argument
According to Darmstadter, we must retain tenaciously our beliefs in order to conveniently live our lives. A perpetual state of agitation and indecision associated with a paralysis of action may best be prevented by epistemological inertia.
Darmstadter points out that some beliefs may be so firmly held that they are immune to argument. Arguing someone out of their opposing belief to your own is no more likely to be successful than the odds of their persuading you to give up your own beliefs.
According to Quine, people will make the least disruptive change to their beliefs that they can. Changing a belief infers there would be an admission that that belief had to be changed because it was wrong.
Such an admission might well be significantly disruptive to an individual’s self esteem. Fear of such an effect may be a strong motivating factor in a person’s resistance to a change of belief.
Darmstadter points out that some beliefs may be so firmly held that they are immune to argument. Arguing someone out of their opposing belief to your own is no more likely to be successful than the odds of their persuading you to give up your own beliefs.
According to Quine, people will make the least disruptive change to their beliefs that they can. Changing a belief infers there would be an admission that that belief had to be changed because it was wrong.
Such an admission might well be significantly disruptive to an individual’s self esteem. Fear of such an effect may be a strong motivating factor in a person’s resistance to a change of belief.
Re: The Limits of Argument
Philosophers mostly argue about arguing a point, since there seems to be no way to avoid the phenomena.
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: The Limits of Argument
I think the problem relates to power differences within interpersonal relations among us. The context matters as well between the same people where power may shift.
I've also noticed that we like to 'own' our intelligence. As such, what we learn from others has less power to grant credit to than our own means of intuiting an understanding based upon our own efforts. It reduces to politics in many cases and emotional affiliation between the persons is all that matters. The best way to get others to 'agree' is to your ideas is to find a means for the other to 'self-discover/rediscover' what you've concluded on their own.
The unfortunate problems with this though is that you lose the 'credit' for discovery where credit matters and if you were to reveal that you had intentionally led another to their discovery, you'd make more enemies than friends. Socrates learned this lesson. The method he used precisely operated by 'leading' the other to some conclusion by asking intentionally manipulated questioning. Once understood that he was doing this, others learned to dislike him because they would reinterpret their interactions with him as 'owning' the ideas you thought were your own. If you did not respect his position with respect to your own, you would less likely make the mistake of letting him 'lead' you because it grants him control over your credibility. So he was eventually asked to leave town or accept a death sentence. [He was actually accused of disrespecting the 'gods'; but this excuse was likely just a formal convenient proxy where no other fair reason could be found. ]
I've also noticed that we like to 'own' our intelligence. As such, what we learn from others has less power to grant credit to than our own means of intuiting an understanding based upon our own efforts. It reduces to politics in many cases and emotional affiliation between the persons is all that matters. The best way to get others to 'agree' is to your ideas is to find a means for the other to 'self-discover/rediscover' what you've concluded on their own.
The unfortunate problems with this though is that you lose the 'credit' for discovery where credit matters and if you were to reveal that you had intentionally led another to their discovery, you'd make more enemies than friends. Socrates learned this lesson. The method he used precisely operated by 'leading' the other to some conclusion by asking intentionally manipulated questioning. Once understood that he was doing this, others learned to dislike him because they would reinterpret their interactions with him as 'owning' the ideas you thought were your own. If you did not respect his position with respect to your own, you would less likely make the mistake of letting him 'lead' you because it grants him control over your credibility. So he was eventually asked to leave town or accept a death sentence. [He was actually accused of disrespecting the 'gods'; but this excuse was likely just a formal convenient proxy where no other fair reason could be found. ]
Re: The Limits of Argument
No argument of yours can ever change my mind.
What can change my mind is a statistically significant counter-evidence. NOT a counter-argument.
What can change my mind is a statistically significant counter-evidence. NOT a counter-argument.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10012
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: The Limits of Argument
I agree with understanding - the statistically significant counter-evidence SHOULD however be conveyed via the counter-argument.
Mine - Logical Inference - coming to a forum near U!
-
- Posts: 4369
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: The Limits of Argument
it's all racism- obey your government masters
says who? this gun.
-Imp
says who? this gun.
-Imp
-
- Posts: 5182
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: The Limits of Argument
Why do this gun say that the limits of argument is all racism?Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:43 pm it's all racism- obey your government masters
says who? this gun.
-Imp
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10012
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: The Limits of Argument
I guess it comes back to which side of 'the pond' you ponder? R U THE GREATEST!!? - sorry I know U R not one of those and neither is impenitent - and fuck nose his/her actual posting username - but - RACISM is still a disgusting aspect within the USA - and unfortunately Trump - with all the 'social' access he has to peoples lives, will continue his EGO battle with little regard to the consequences.commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 5:04 pmWhy do this gun say that the limits of argument is all racism?Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:43 pm it's all racism- obey your government masters
says who? this gun.
-Imp
-
- Posts: 5182
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: The Limits of Argument
OK. I think I understand your references to racism, government masters and guns. Your word associations are esoteric enough to engage me creatively.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 6:04 pmI guess it comes back to which side of 'the pond' you ponder? R U THE GREATEST!!? - sorry I know U R not one of those and neither is impenitent - and fuck nose his/her actual posting username - but - RACISM is still a disgusting aspect within the USA - and unfortunately Trump - with all the 'social' access he has to peoples lives, will continue his EGO battle with little regard to the consequences.commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 5:04 pmWhy do this gun say that the limits of argument is all racism?Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:43 pm it's all racism- obey your government masters
says who? this gun.
-Imp
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10012
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: The Limits of Argument
''creatively'...ponderous, very ponderous.commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 7:40 pmOK. I think I understand your references to racism, government masters and guns. Your word associations are esoteric enough to engage me creatively.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 6:04 pmI guess it comes back to which side of 'the pond' you ponder? R U THE GREATEST!!? - sorry I know U R not one of those and neither is impenitent - and fuck nose his/her actual posting username - but - RACISM is still a disgusting aspect within the USA - and unfortunately Trump - with all the 'social' access he has to peoples lives, will continue his EGO battle with little regard to the consequences.commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 5:04 pm
Why do this gun say that the limits of argument is all racism?
-
- Posts: 5182
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: The Limits of Argument
stimulatingly?attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 9:10 am''creatively'...ponderous, very ponderous.commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 7:40 pmOK. I think I understand your references to racism, government masters and guns. Your word associations are esoteric enough to engage me creatively.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 6:04 pm
I guess it comes back to which side of 'the pond' you ponder? R U THE GREATEST!!? - sorry I know U R not one of those and neither is impenitent - and fuck nose his/her actual posting username - but - RACISM is still a disgusting aspect within the USA - and unfortunately Trump - with all the 'social' access he has to peoples lives, will continue his EGO battle with little regard to the consequences.
-
- Posts: 5182
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: The Limits of Argument
excitedly?
(Vocabulary fails me in paroxysms when dementia waxes.)
(Vocabulary fails me in paroxysms when dementia waxes.)
Re: The Limits of Argument
Statistics don't negate the possibility of something occuring but rather observe the occurrence of something happening a fraction of the time. Statistics observes a phenomenon occuring through fractions of time, they don't prove or disprove a phenomenon.