5 ms·

To add to your point, holding opposing ideas in your mind doesn't mean you accept both ideas as correct and valid and good (as in the Orwell quote). It just mea

by mfoy_ 11y ago

To add to your point, holding opposing ideas in your mind doesn't mean you accept both ideas as correct and valid and good (as in the Orwell quote). It just means that you can appreciate them and understand some of the points they try to make. The issue with polarized politics is that it encourages one-mindedness. Instead of trying to understand where your political opponents are coming from, you are encouraged to reject them and their ideas as "the enemy". A very anti-intellectual "Us versus Them" mindset.

wolfgke 11y ago
> To add to your point, holding opposing ideas in your mind doesn't mean you accept both ideas as correct and valid and good (as in the Orwell quote). It just means that you can appreciate them and understand some of the points they try to make. If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both) must be wrong. That is basic science. This is also why physicists still try to unify general relativity and quantum physics. So instead of accepting multiple ideas use your mind to 1. create predictions that each of the conflicting theses imply, such that the two theses will do different predictions, which if they can't be observed will convince you that the thesis was wrong. 2. develop an experiment with which you can observe these predictions 3. execute the experiment
- aangjie 11y ago
  I don't know why your answer was downvoted. Your point is a sane approach to handling opposing/conflicting ideas. Though I didn't read the Original quote as accepting opposing/conflicting ideas.
  - mfoy_ 11y ago
    I believe it was originally down-voted for making the assumption that science could solve politics (we're talking opinions, not facts, so you cannot rigourously apply the scientific method). The comment also fell for the trap of falsely equating opposition with conflict. As a thought experiment, take the issue of abortion. GP is telling me that certainly either "Abortions should be allowed because of the mother's rights" or "Abortions should not be allowed because of the unborn child's rights" is WRONG. Tell me how anyone could possibly create an "experiment" which would result in a meaningful answer. How would you measure the morality and goodness of the event in a way that everyone could agree upon? Do you see the problem?
    - wolfgke 11y ago
      > As a thought experiment, take the issue of abortion. GP is telling me that certainly either "Abortions should be allowed because of the mother's rights" or "Abortions should not be allowed because of the unborn child's rights" is WRONG. Tell me how anyone could possibly create an "experiment" which would result in a meaningful answer. How would you measure the morality and goodness of the event in a way that everyone could agree upon? Do you see the problem? The problem here is that biological and neurological research has a long way to go to resolve the question after what week of pregnancy what level of consciousness or intellectual capacity is there. So at the moment there is no way to answer this question in an acceptable way.
      - thyrsus 11y ago
        This is a fruitful example: the vast majority of those opposed to abortion will concede that a zygote has no conciousness or intellectual capacity, yet most of them will nonetheless insist on the zygote's personhood and right to life.
        wolfgke 11y ago
        Exactly.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        No, the problem is that they are "should" questions, and thus experiments can't answer them at all. Now, if you assume a moral framework in which a certain combination of consciousness or intellectual capacity on the part of the mother makes her rights paramount (or one which does so for the child, or one which does some calculus on the relative levels of those traits between the mother and the child to determine which is paramount) then you can reduce this to a fact question that is conceivably resolvable by experiment (and, thus, leave only the problem that you mention), but I would assert that there is no such consensus moral framework, so you've actually identified the easy problem with resolving the conflict, while ignoring the fundamental and intractable one.
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  In this context opposition is not necessarily conflict. Are two sides of a bridge opposing each other or conflicting with each other? In a client-server security model the client usually wants as much as it can take and the server wants to provide as little as it has to. Are these opposed, or in conflict?
  - wolfgke 11y ago
    > In this context opposition is not necessarily conflict. Than it's not an opposition. > In a client-server security model the client usually wants as much as it can take and the server wants to provide as little as it has to. Are these opposed, or in conflict? Now you create a malicious client which will pretent it has little, say, computational power or network capacity. So the server will have to do lots of work. Voila - a good beginning for a DoS attack. :-) So, yes, these goals are in conflict and such an attack is a falsification of the soundness of your security model.
    - mfoy_ 11y ago
      I apologize if I'm incorrect, but I believe English is not your first language. There is a difference between opposition and conflict. It's a bit subtle but it's very important in this context. When you say a "malicious client" you are misunderstanding the purpose of my analogy. A malicious client would be "the enemy". I'm talking about a client that is interested with engaging with the service, not just shutting it down. The client may like to have all the information and resources the server has available to it, (for example, perhaps a facebook user might want to see when people look at their photos, not just like/comment) but the server needs to consider the experience of all the clients and users, not just the one. So there is opposition (but not conflict!) between the two. The client will not be allowed to have this information, even though the server has it. Conflict would be manifested by the user abandoning the service (or attacking it, as in your example) because of this incompatible or insurmountable difference.
- mindslight 11y ago
  This is only true if you can be sure of your starting axioms, which is not the case in social organization. Experiments simply add specific metrics to your set of axioms. It all comes down to heuristics, and differing heuristics are not mutually exclusive.
- ScottBurson 11y ago
  > If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both) must be wrong. This is too simplistic. They can be partially right as well as partially wrong. Is light a wave or a particle? Well, it depends. Two opposing half-truths form a paradox. While some paradoxes can be resolved, by finding a deeper theory that unifies them, some cannot. To draw an example from the political realm -- more relevant to this discussion -- here are two truths: (1) We are all in this together. (2) Each person is responsible for their own life. These are both true, but conflict. And I do not think there will ever be a final resolution of this paradox. In some situations, the first principle is more important; in others, the second. Hashing out which is which is a never-ending debate, and a critically important one.
  - wolfgke 11y ago
    > > If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both) must be wrong. > This is too simplistic. They can be partially right as well as partially wrong. Is light a wave or a particle? Well, it depends. In this case both statements (light is a wave and light is a particle) are simply wrong and as current scientific matters stand the description given by quantum physics seems to be the correct one (at least for about 70 years no experiment could be given that has disproved it).

by mfoy_ 11y ago

wolfgke 11y ago

> To add to your point, holding opposing ideas in your mind doesn't mean you accept both ideas as correct and valid and good (as in the Orwell quote). It just means that you can appreciate them and understand some of the points they try to make. If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both) must be wrong. That is basic science. This is also why physicists still try to unify general relativity and quantum physics. So instead of accepting multiple ideas use your mind to 1. create predictions that each of the conflicting theses imply, such that the two theses will do different predictions, which if they can't be observed will convince you that the thesis was wrong. 2. develop an experiment with which you can observe these predictions 3. execute the experiment

aangjie 11y ago
I don't know why your answer was downvoted. Your point is a sane approach to handling opposing/conflicting ideas. Though I didn't read the Original quote as accepting opposing/conflicting ideas.
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  I believe it was originally down-voted for making the assumption that science could solve politics (we're talking opinions, not facts, so you cannot rigourously apply the scientific method). The comment also fell for the trap of falsely equating opposition with conflict. As a thought experiment, take the issue of abortion. GP is telling me that certainly either "Abortions should be allowed because of the mother's rights" or "Abortions should not be allowed because of the unborn child's rights" is WRONG. Tell me how anyone could possibly create an "experiment" which would result in a meaningful answer. How would you measure the morality and goodness of the event in a way that everyone could agree upon? Do you see the problem?
  - wolfgke 11y ago
    > As a thought experiment, take the issue of abortion. GP is telling me that certainly either "Abortions should be allowed because of the mother's rights" or "Abortions should not be allowed because of the unborn child's rights" is WRONG. Tell me how anyone could possibly create an "experiment" which would result in a meaningful answer. How would you measure the morality and goodness of the event in a way that everyone could agree upon? Do you see the problem? The problem here is that biological and neurological research has a long way to go to resolve the question after what week of pregnancy what level of consciousness or intellectual capacity is there. So at the moment there is no way to answer this question in an acceptable way.
    - thyrsus 11y ago
      This is a fruitful example: the vast majority of those opposed to abortion will concede that a zygote has no conciousness or intellectual capacity, yet most of them will nonetheless insist on the zygote's personhood and right to life.
      - wolfgke 11y ago
        Exactly.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      No, the problem is that they are "should" questions, and thus experiments can't answer them at all. Now, if you assume a moral framework in which a certain combination of consciousness or intellectual capacity on the part of the mother makes her rights paramount (or one which does so for the child, or one which does some calculus on the relative levels of those traits between the mother and the child to determine which is paramount) then you can reduce this to a fact question that is conceivably resolvable by experiment (and, thus, leave only the problem that you mention), but I would assert that there is no such consensus moral framework, so you've actually identified the easy problem with resolving the conflict, while ignoring the fundamental and intractable one.
mfoy_ 11y ago
In this context opposition is not necessarily conflict. Are two sides of a bridge opposing each other or conflicting with each other? In a client-server security model the client usually wants as much as it can take and the server wants to provide as little as it has to. Are these opposed, or in conflict?
- wolfgke 11y ago
  > In this context opposition is not necessarily conflict. Than it's not an opposition. > In a client-server security model the client usually wants as much as it can take and the server wants to provide as little as it has to. Are these opposed, or in conflict? Now you create a malicious client which will pretent it has little, say, computational power or network capacity. So the server will have to do lots of work. Voila - a good beginning for a DoS attack. :-) So, yes, these goals are in conflict and such an attack is a falsification of the soundness of your security model.
  - mfoy_ 11y ago
    I apologize if I'm incorrect, but I believe English is not your first language. There is a difference between opposition and conflict. It's a bit subtle but it's very important in this context. When you say a "malicious client" you are misunderstanding the purpose of my analogy. A malicious client would be "the enemy". I'm talking about a client that is interested with engaging with the service, not just shutting it down. The client may like to have all the information and resources the server has available to it, (for example, perhaps a facebook user might want to see when people look at their photos, not just like/comment) but the server needs to consider the experience of all the clients and users, not just the one. So there is opposition (but not conflict!) between the two. The client will not be allowed to have this information, even though the server has it. Conflict would be manifested by the user abandoning the service (or attacking it, as in your example) because of this incompatible or insurmountable difference.
mindslight 11y ago
This is only true if you can be sure of your starting axioms, which is not the case in social organization. Experiments simply add specific metrics to your set of axioms. It all comes down to heuristics, and differing heuristics are not mutually exclusive.
ScottBurson 11y ago
> If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both) must be wrong. This is too simplistic. They can be partially right as well as partially wrong. Is light a wave or a particle? Well, it depends. Two opposing half-truths form a paradox. While some paradoxes can be resolved, by finding a deeper theory that unifies them, some cannot. To draw an example from the political realm -- more relevant to this discussion -- here are two truths: (1) We are all in this together. (2) Each person is responsible for their own life. These are both true, but conflict. And I do not think there will ever be a final resolution of this paradox. In some situations, the first principle is more important; in others, the second. Hashing out which is which is a never-ending debate, and a critically important one.
- wolfgke 11y ago
  > > If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both) must be wrong. > This is too simplistic. They can be partially right as well as partially wrong. Is light a wave or a particle? Well, it depends. In this case both statements (light is a wave and light is a particle) are simply wrong and as current scientific matters stand the description given by quantum physics seems to be the correct one (at least for about 70 years no experiment could be given that has disproved it).