4 ms·

The following is not commentary on the current climate and politics of college campuses in the United States. It is impossible for two honest, truth-seeking pe

The following is not commentary on the current climate and politics of college campuses in the United States. It is impossible for two honest, truth-seeking people to disagree about a fact in perpetuity. Eventually, they will realize that either (a) one or another of them is correct or (b) neither is able to convince the other, and both realize that neither has figured out the right answer. This is not an opinion, it is a logical fact. I disagree with other mathematicians about mathematics frequently; it never ends that we "agree to disagree". Either one of us is right, or neither is, and in any case we figure it out and agree by the time we let the issue go. Many political disagreements are, of course, not factual, but rather based on values. But often what we talk about is facts. So part of my belief that first world countries should accept more immigrants is based on my view that people outside of one's own country have substantial moral worth. But it's also based on my belief that, e.g., U.S. immigrants will not substantially increase the U.S. crime rate, or worsen the U.S. fiscal situation, and will in fact make Americans on net wealthier. These are all factual questions, and I suspect that they drive my disagreement with immigration restrictionists as much, if not more so, than our philosophical disagreements. But the thing is, either me or the people I'm disagreeing with are just wrong, and the fact that neither of us seems to be convinced means that at least one of us is wrong and intellectually dishonest. And I have a hard time believing that I'm never the one being intellectually dishonest.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> It is impossible for two honest, truth-seeking people to disagree about a fact in perpetuity Since people are mortal, the “honest” and “truth-seeking” qualifiers are superfluous. It is, on the other hand, for honest and truth-seeking people to disagree on a matter of fact for as long as either lives, which is as close to “in perpetuity” as can matter for them. More relevantly, perhaps, it is quite possible for an honest and truth-seeking individual to decide that the cost in time and other resources to resolve a disagreement with another such person is not justified, and for such a decision to be reciprocal, hence an agreement to disagree on a matter D fact. > Many political disagreements are, of course, not factual, but rather based on values. Almost all political disagreements are, at root, disagreements about values or definitions, not facts, and those few that are about facts are often rooted in different fundamental beliefs about epistemology, rather than being resolvable in a shared epistemic framework.
vishaalk 9y ago
Thanks for your salient comment. I also reached the conclusion you did in your second paragraph. Does this mean that most policy debates boil down to philosophical ones, trying to convince the other person to change their value(s)? First we must agree on a set of values, then we do research to find the best way of living by those values. We must sometimes acknowledge that these facts do not yet exist, and so we can't resolve our disagreement until that research is done. I suppose if two people have the same value (e.g. immigrants have substantial moral worth), they can still disagree on how best to help them. If the data turns out that immigration makes everyone worse off, are we forced to bar them entry? It seems at odds with my moral compass, which leads to a muddled area of bending facts to appease moral codes. If you're available I would love to pick your thoughts on this.
tpeo 9y ago
It's entirely possible that two people might not come to a unique solution to a problem, but whether or not they'll "disagree" over it requires the additional hypothesis that they'll pick some "solution" as their own. For instance, someone might come to us asking for a text editor. In the absence of additional constraints (e.g. "it should be lightweight", "it should be extensible", "it should be WYSIWYG", etc), there's no unique solution. A unique solution only arises given some sufficient set of constraints. And the discussion will only degenerate into another vim vs Emacs pissing contest if there's any two people in it, one to defend each editor, who aren't keen enough to appreciate this.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> It is impossible for two honest, truth-seeking people to disagree about a fact in perpetuity Since people are mortal, the “honest” and “truth-seeking” qualifiers are superfluous. It is, on the other hand, for honest and truth-seeking people to disagree on a matter of fact for as long as either lives, which is as close to “in perpetuity” as can matter for them. More relevantly, perhaps, it is quite possible for an honest and truth-seeking individual to decide that the cost in time and other resources to resolve a disagreement with another such person is not justified, and for such a decision to be reciprocal, hence an agreement to disagree on a matter D fact. > Many political disagreements are, of course, not factual, but rather based on values. Almost all political disagreements are, at root, disagreements about values or definitions, not facts, and those few that are about facts are often rooted in different fundamental beliefs about epistemology, rather than being resolvable in a shared epistemic framework.

vishaalk 9y ago

Thanks for your salient comment. I also reached the conclusion you did in your second paragraph. Does this mean that most policy debates boil down to philosophical ones, trying to convince the other person to change their value(s)? First we must agree on a set of values, then we do research to find the best way of living by those values. We must sometimes acknowledge that these facts do not yet exist, and so we can't resolve our disagreement until that research is done. I suppose if two people have the same value (e.g. immigrants have substantial moral worth), they can still disagree on how best to help them. If the data turns out that immigration makes everyone worse off, are we forced to bar them entry? It seems at odds with my moral compass, which leads to a muddled area of bending facts to appease moral codes. If you're available I would love to pick your thoughts on this.

tpeo 9y ago

It's entirely possible that two people might not come to a unique solution to a problem, but whether or not they'll "disagree" over it requires the additional hypothesis that they'll pick some "solution" as their own. For instance, someone might come to us asking for a text editor. In the absence of additional constraints (e.g. "it should be lightweight", "it should be extensible", "it should be WYSIWYG", etc), there's no unique solution. A unique solution only arises given some sufficient set of constraints. And the discussion will only degenerate into another vim vs Emacs pissing contest if there's any two people in it, one to defend each editor, who aren't keen enough to appreciate this.