4 ms·
> Life is too short to critically refute every single crackpot theory out there. In this case, rather than claiming you disagree (which should imply understand
by alehul 8y ago
> Life is too short to critically refute every single crackpot theory out there.
In this case, rather than claiming you disagree (which should imply understanding), you can just say you don't know enough about the issue to comment on it.
The spirit of the above argument is that, if you're going to vehemently disagree or argue with someone, you should understand— not that you need to understand every issue, nor agree or disagree with every issue.
- scott_s 8y ago> In this case, rather than claiming you disagree (which should imply understanding), you can just say you don't know enough about the issue to comment on it. aidenn0 is making a subtlety different point: this form of rational argument depends on good-faith. If you think that has been violated, you would not say "I don't know enough about the issue to comment on it," but rather "I don't think this person is arguing in good-faith." I agree with the principle of charity, and your claim that you should understand before disagreeing. But it is also true that you will encounter people who are not arguing in good-faith, in which case it is sometimes a mistake to even engage.
- alehul 8y agoTotally agree– I was responding to "crackpot theory" which sounds more like wild conspiracy theories that people truly believe, rather than arguing in bad faith, but after re-reading, I think that is the point aidenn0 was trying to make.
- aidenn0 8y agoSorry for the late reply: On the internet (which is where the quality of rhetoric could most use the principle of charity these days), it is hard or even impossible to tell the difference between a troll or a crackpot.