32 ms·

"I don't understand it" is an admission of ignorance, not wise authority justifying condemnation. Few seem to understand this. If you can't concoct a strong* a

"I don't understand it" is an admission of ignorance, not wise authority justifying condemnation. Few seem to understand this. If you can't concoct a strong* argument favoring the opposing view, you don't understand the issue well enough. *Edit: as suggested, it's "strong" argument, not necessarily "convincing". If you can make a convincing argument for the other side but not for your own, perhaps you need reconsider your stance.

mwfunk 11y ago
This is the most concise expression I've heard of something I've felt was a fundamental truth for a long time, thank you!
lotharbot 11y ago
slight caveat: I think you can understand an issue very well and be able to concoct a strong argument in favor of the opposing view, which is nonetheless not very convincing. (Sometimes you may also be able to concoct a strong but unconvincing argument in favor of your own view. Some issues are like that -- the best arguments on both sides still aren't really convincing.)
Domenic_S 11y ago
> admission of ignorance And although "ignorance" has a negative connotation, I argue it's a neutral thing unless otherwise modified, ie. as opposed to "willful ignorance". The healthcare field uses the gentler term "knowledge deficit" regarding patients; I've taken to using that term in engineering contexts as well.
tomjen3 11y ago
I can't make a strong argument for the Earth being flat, does that mean I don't understand the question well enough? I can't come up with a single coherent good argument against gay marriage, does that mean I don't understand the question? I think your rule is very useful as a guide line, but please don't make it a rule. There really are policies and ideas that are one sided.
- aidenn0 11y ago
  > I can't make a strong argument for the Earth being flat, does that mean I don't understand the question well enough? Yes. Have you never used a flat map for navigation? Did the map deviate from what you observed on the earth by enough to notice? The curvature of the earth is very small, so it is trivial to come up with a world-view in which it would be "obvious" that the earth is flat.
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    Lest one dismiss the notion that anyone would willingly adhere to a "flat Earth world view", remember that most people are baffled by airliner flight paths as drawn on flat world maps.
  - sobkas 11y ago
    So make a strong argument for Earth being flat, right now you have only made strong argument for why people perceive earth as flat.
    - aidenn0 11y ago
      The arguments are not meaningfully different. For each individual, their perception is indistinguishable (to them) from reality. It could be trivially changed: "I use a flat map to navigate. I perceive no difference between the map and reality. Therefore reality is like the map." For things that are very strongly one-sided you almost certainly aren't going to make an argument that convinces yourself, but if it's not at least as good as the arguments used by people that disagree with you, you are doing yourself an intellectual disservice.
    - lotharbot 11y ago
      "In the early days of civilization, the general feeling was that the earth was flat. This was not because people were stupid, or because they were intent on believing silly things. They felt it was flat on the basis of sound evidence. It was not just a matter of "That's how it looks," because the earth does not look flat. It looks chaotically bumpy, with hills, valleys, ravines, cliffs, and so on. Of course there are plains where, over limited areas, the earth's surface does look fairly flat. One of those plains is in the Tigris-Euphrates area, where the first historical civilization (one with writing) developed, that of the Sumerians. Perhaps it was the appearance of the plain that persuaded the clever Sumerians to accept the generalization that the earth was flat; that if you somehow evened out all the elevations and depressions, you would be left with flatness. Contributing to the notion may have been the fact that stretches of water (ponds and lakes) looked pretty flat on quiet days. Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the "curvature" of the earth's surface Over a considerable length, how much does the surface deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness. The flat-earth theory would make it seem that the surface doesn't deviate from flatness at all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile. Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn't. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That's why the theory lasted so long." - Isaac Asimov, The Relativity of Wrong, http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm (read the whole thing.)

mwfunk 11y ago

This is the most concise expression I've heard of something I've felt was a fundamental truth for a long time, thank you!

lotharbot 11y ago

slight caveat: I think you can understand an issue very well and be able to concoct a strong argument in favor of the opposing view, which is nonetheless not very convincing. (Sometimes you may also be able to concoct a strong but unconvincing argument in favor of your own view. Some issues are like that -- the best arguments on both sides still aren't really convincing.)

Domenic_S 11y ago

> admission of ignorance And although "ignorance" has a negative connotation, I argue it's a neutral thing unless otherwise modified, ie. as opposed to "willful ignorance". The healthcare field uses the gentler term "knowledge deficit" regarding patients; I've taken to using that term in engineering contexts as well.

tomjen3 11y ago

I can't make a strong argument for the Earth being flat, does that mean I don't understand the question well enough? I can't come up with a single coherent good argument against gay marriage, does that mean I don't understand the question? I think your rule is very useful as a guide line, but please don't make it a rule. There really are policies and ideas that are one sided.

aidenn0 11y ago
> I can't make a strong argument for the Earth being flat, does that mean I don't understand the question well enough? Yes. Have you never used a flat map for navigation? Did the map deviate from what you observed on the earth by enough to notice? The curvature of the earth is very small, so it is trivial to come up with a world-view in which it would be "obvious" that the earth is flat.
- ctdonath 11y ago
  Lest one dismiss the notion that anyone would willingly adhere to a "flat Earth world view", remember that most people are baffled by airliner flight paths as drawn on flat world maps.
- sobkas 11y ago
  So make a strong argument for Earth being flat, right now you have only made strong argument for why people perceive earth as flat.
  - aidenn0 11y ago
    The arguments are not meaningfully different. For each individual, their perception is indistinguishable (to them) from reality. It could be trivially changed: "I use a flat map to navigate. I perceive no difference between the map and reality. Therefore reality is like the map." For things that are very strongly one-sided you almost certainly aren't going to make an argument that convinces yourself, but if it's not at least as good as the arguments used by people that disagree with you, you are doing yourself an intellectual disservice.
  - lotharbot 11y ago
    "In the early days of civilization, the general feeling was that the earth was flat. This was not because people were stupid, or because they were intent on believing silly things. They felt it was flat on the basis of sound evidence. It was not just a matter of "That's how it looks," because the earth does not look flat. It looks chaotically bumpy, with hills, valleys, ravines, cliffs, and so on. Of course there are plains where, over limited areas, the earth's surface does look fairly flat. One of those plains is in the Tigris-Euphrates area, where the first historical civilization (one with writing) developed, that of the Sumerians. Perhaps it was the appearance of the plain that persuaded the clever Sumerians to accept the generalization that the earth was flat; that if you somehow evened out all the elevations and depressions, you would be left with flatness. Contributing to the notion may have been the fact that stretches of water (ponds and lakes) looked pretty flat on quiet days. Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the "curvature" of the earth's surface Over a considerable length, how much does the surface deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness. The flat-earth theory would make it seem that the surface doesn't deviate from flatness at all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile. Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn't. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That's why the theory lasted so long." - Isaac Asimov, The Relativity of Wrong, http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm (read the whole thing.)