4 ms·

The earth is not flat. Smoking causes cancer. Global warming is happening and is man made. The problem with relativism is that it gives a justification to someo

by Gupie 6y ago

The earth is not flat. Smoking causes cancer. Global warming is happening and is man made. The problem with relativism is that it gives a justification to someone who says these statements are false.

themodelplumber 6y ago
Those are all also false, depending on the perspective. Flat from where, to whom. Cancer in who, and how many, after how long, from which ratios, with which error rate on which factor. Global warming to who, where, and which men. (I'll offer that these may be maddening perspectives, but that does not itself mean they are invalid) If you want to reconcile or come to a shared understanding with flat-earthers, it may help to meet them where they are at, and show them why their mental models are effective and truth-yielding in some ways, while also limited in others. It may also help to understand their psychology, and work from a different angle. Wielding "wrong" as one's only tool can limit the opportunity to try a variety of such approaches, and test for effect. Absolute truth is a mental model. It may have its uses, but its own absolute utility or validity is not guaranteed. Further it may do one great intellectual or psychological harm to remain caught in this logical trap: It feels so right, but its key doesn't fit all these locks (others' annoying positions). So why keep using it over and over? Humans can be amazingly flexible thinkers, holding contradicting mental models in the same mind. So why not take advantage of this? Absolutes and fixed thinking are a huge liability in this way. Edited to add: In most cases the stakes are lower, too. Global warming probably won't be solved by one person's mental models, no matter how absolute or flexible and thoughtful. So there's also a misleading aspect, perhaps a falsehood-perspective, to the given examples. See also: Was so-and-so the dictator good in some ways, or pure evil, etc. These questions may belie the hyperbolic beginner mind more than they form a high-quality test of the framework.
- drewboo 6y ago
  I think people get frustrated since even if you actually get through to someone and understand their perspective, it doesn't guarantee that person will be open to learning and abandoning their previously held beliefs. It's difficult to accept that some individuals will never be open to a change of mind, or maybe that the patience required is too much.
  - themodelplumber 6y ago
    For sure, there's no guarantee. For this reason absolute truth has at times been turned into an emotional baseball bat under such circumstances. It's frustrating to lose traction, or even find oneself pushed backward. Argument thus becomes a full-time employee of boiling emotion. And that's also a really good reason to have a simple framework to help with the moderation of effort, if the goal is to change a mind. For example, at the very least it may need to be understood that such a process could take years and years. It's not even just a logical precision or debater-quality question; it's also a question of energy, relationship values, and emotion. I'd add that at an individual level there are also some leverage points that aren't available at a group level. For example, you can sometimes more quickly identify and speak to an individual's value system. E.g. are they afraid of being closed-minded in general, and as such do they get sucked up into every conspiracy that comes along? Usually there are a lot of little values that add up, within the individual. Walking through these can bring outside perspectives to an individual's awareness more quickly, as perhaps-unconscious motives are made conscious.
    - drewboo 6y ago
      The contrast between the individual and group level is something I've been thinking about a lot lately. Your point about the value system is intriguing. In my experience, debate has always been more fulfilling on the individual level, since it feels like the exchange of ideas comes more easily. Trying to expand this to a wider audience takes much more effort like you described.
- discreteevent 6y ago
  Surely you would admit that this breaks down in many cases. Suppose you are teaching someone to drive. They might have some funny ideas about what they can do safely. But there isn't any room for debate. Same if we are building a bridge. I can't come in with some creative new idea and implement it with out first learning the right way to build a bridge. Nature doesn't have some mental model that I can choose to disagree with. It is what it is and I have to adapt my model or suffer.
  - themodelplumber 6y ago
    > They might have some funny ideas about what they can do safely. But there isn't any room for debate What are the ideas, and why isn't there any room for debate? It seems like a bit of an imaginative and wide-open perception to yield much traction for the purposes of this discussion. > I can't come in with some creative new idea and implement it with out first learning the right way to build a bridge Hmm, is there "a" right way? What size is the bridge? For what use? I can build a Lego bridge that's pretty strong. Did I just meet nature at its bridge-building rules while not knowing your right way, or are those rules perhaps more nuanced than expected? Also, are we sure that the imaginary creative idea in question is in total disagreement with nature? What if it's fitting observed perceptions? Perhaps it has leverage in this way or that. Again there's not much else to be said in the conceptual zone here. I'd also add that dichotomous model like "adapt or suffer" is in my experience a common sign of a mental model which may be in need of further adaptation :-)
    - discreteevent 6y ago
      Adapt or suffer is not a mental model. I'm not talking about politics or religion. If you routinely drive down the wrong side of the highway because you would not adapt then you will suffer. That's just the way it is. Can you agree on that?
      - themodelplumber 6y ago
        The imagined example seems suspiciously detached from real context, and also detail-avoidant. Hypotheticals that get even broader and less detailed aren't really doing such an absolutist position any favors. Instead they would seem to buttress the position that absolutism is easily divorced from real-life utility and social benefit. I would offer that the questions you ask do seem to point at a fixed mental position, around which theoretical and intractable constructs are arranged as seems most expeditious to the closure of the discussion. If that's what you really want, permission to go your way and think your thoughts without others butting in with details, then you don't really need a partner with whom to reach that decision. But there's also no guarantee that relevant and contextual details won't cause someone in your position considerable philosophical trouble in the future, around this fixed concept of truth...
- lisper 6y ago
  > Those are all also false Only on perverse semantics. You can always provide a plausible-sounding semantic model of any proposition stated in natural language that renders that proposition true or false. But natural language utterances actually do mean things despite their inherent ambiguity. When someone says "Smoking causes cancer" they mean, "Smoking a lot produces a statistically significant increase in your risk of developing cancer." They do not mean, "Smoking one cigarette is guaranteed to give you cancer." Picking at semantic nits is counterproductive. There's probably even a name for it as a logical fallacy but I'm too lazy and frustrated at the general state of discourse in the world to bother looking it up right now.
  - chestervonwinch 6y ago
    > There's probably even a name for it as a logical fallacy... Maybe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
  - themodelplumber 6y ago
    > perverse semantics Hmm. I'm curious as to the value of attaching such an archaic, subjective values-oriented term as "perverse" to the label here. What does "perverse" mean in this context, and is it really expected to sway opinions with what appears on its face to be rather emotional language? > But natural language utterances actually do mean things despite their inherent ambiguity This statement seems to work in anyone's favor, or no one's, where the argument is concerned... > Smoking a lot produces a statistically significant increase in your risk of developing cancer With an error rate of...zero? With a bell curve of...? With a qualitatively superior study based on the population of...? Let us have the study. Let us tear it apart. What do we have to lose by admitting that smoking may not cause cancer in this way or that one? > They do not mean, "Smoking one cigarette is guaranteed to give you cancer" Your assumption, but not mine. For all I know, smoking one cigarette may do the job. > Picking at semantic nits is counterproductive. Why? Details are important. > There's probably even a name for it as a logical fallacy Even logical fallacies are not fallacies when they are relevant to the discussion at hand. This is Logical Fallacy 101--see the "Fallacy Fallacy". > I'm too lazy and frustrated at the general state of discourse in the world to bother looking it up right now. This is discourse, right here. Bringing frustration into it is fine, but there's no guarantee it won't affect the quality of the discourse...

by Gupie 6y ago

The earth is not flat. Smoking causes cancer. Global warming is happening and is man made. The problem with relativism is that it gives a justification to someone who says these statements are false.

themodelplumber 6y ago

Those are all also false, depending on the perspective. Flat from where, to whom. Cancer in who, and how many, after how long, from which ratios, with which error rate on which factor. Global warming to who, where, and which men. (I'll offer that these may be maddening perspectives, but that does not itself mean they are invalid) If you want to reconcile or come to a shared understanding with flat-earthers, it may help to meet them where they are at, and show them why their mental models are effective and truth-yielding in some ways, while also limited in others. It may also help to understand their psychology, and work from a different angle. Wielding "wrong" as one's only tool can limit the opportunity to try a variety of such approaches, and test for effect. Absolute truth is a mental model. It may have its uses, but its own absolute utility or validity is not guaranteed. Further it may do one great intellectual or psychological harm to remain caught in this logical trap: It feels so right, but its key doesn't fit all these locks (others' annoying positions). So why keep using it over and over? Humans can be amazingly flexible thinkers, holding contradicting mental models in the same mind. So why not take advantage of this? Absolutes and fixed thinking are a huge liability in this way. Edited to add: In most cases the stakes are lower, too. Global warming probably won't be solved by one person's mental models, no matter how absolute or flexible and thoughtful. So there's also a misleading aspect, perhaps a falsehood-perspective, to the given examples. See also: Was so-and-so the dictator good in some ways, or pure evil, etc. These questions may belie the hyperbolic beginner mind more than they form a high-quality test of the framework.

drewboo 6y ago
I think people get frustrated since even if you actually get through to someone and understand their perspective, it doesn't guarantee that person will be open to learning and abandoning their previously held beliefs. It's difficult to accept that some individuals will never be open to a change of mind, or maybe that the patience required is too much.
- themodelplumber 6y ago
  For sure, there's no guarantee. For this reason absolute truth has at times been turned into an emotional baseball bat under such circumstances. It's frustrating to lose traction, or even find oneself pushed backward. Argument thus becomes a full-time employee of boiling emotion. And that's also a really good reason to have a simple framework to help with the moderation of effort, if the goal is to change a mind. For example, at the very least it may need to be understood that such a process could take years and years. It's not even just a logical precision or debater-quality question; it's also a question of energy, relationship values, and emotion. I'd add that at an individual level there are also some leverage points that aren't available at a group level. For example, you can sometimes more quickly identify and speak to an individual's value system. E.g. are they afraid of being closed-minded in general, and as such do they get sucked up into every conspiracy that comes along? Usually there are a lot of little values that add up, within the individual. Walking through these can bring outside perspectives to an individual's awareness more quickly, as perhaps-unconscious motives are made conscious.
  - drewboo 6y ago
    The contrast between the individual and group level is something I've been thinking about a lot lately. Your point about the value system is intriguing. In my experience, debate has always been more fulfilling on the individual level, since it feels like the exchange of ideas comes more easily. Trying to expand this to a wider audience takes much more effort like you described.
discreteevent 6y ago
Surely you would admit that this breaks down in many cases. Suppose you are teaching someone to drive. They might have some funny ideas about what they can do safely. But there isn't any room for debate. Same if we are building a bridge. I can't come in with some creative new idea and implement it with out first learning the right way to build a bridge. Nature doesn't have some mental model that I can choose to disagree with. It is what it is and I have to adapt my model or suffer.
- themodelplumber 6y ago
  > They might have some funny ideas about what they can do safely. But there isn't any room for debate What are the ideas, and why isn't there any room for debate? It seems like a bit of an imaginative and wide-open perception to yield much traction for the purposes of this discussion. > I can't come in with some creative new idea and implement it with out first learning the right way to build a bridge Hmm, is there "a" right way? What size is the bridge? For what use? I can build a Lego bridge that's pretty strong. Did I just meet nature at its bridge-building rules while not knowing your right way, or are those rules perhaps more nuanced than expected? Also, are we sure that the imaginary creative idea in question is in total disagreement with nature? What if it's fitting observed perceptions? Perhaps it has leverage in this way or that. Again there's not much else to be said in the conceptual zone here. I'd also add that dichotomous model like "adapt or suffer" is in my experience a common sign of a mental model which may be in need of further adaptation :-)
  - discreteevent 6y ago
    Adapt or suffer is not a mental model. I'm not talking about politics or religion. If you routinely drive down the wrong side of the highway because you would not adapt then you will suffer. That's just the way it is. Can you agree on that?
    - themodelplumber 6y ago
      The imagined example seems suspiciously detached from real context, and also detail-avoidant. Hypotheticals that get even broader and less detailed aren't really doing such an absolutist position any favors. Instead they would seem to buttress the position that absolutism is easily divorced from real-life utility and social benefit. I would offer that the questions you ask do seem to point at a fixed mental position, around which theoretical and intractable constructs are arranged as seems most expeditious to the closure of the discussion. If that's what you really want, permission to go your way and think your thoughts without others butting in with details, then you don't really need a partner with whom to reach that decision. But there's also no guarantee that relevant and contextual details won't cause someone in your position considerable philosophical trouble in the future, around this fixed concept of truth...
lisper 6y ago
> Those are all also false Only on perverse semantics. You can always provide a plausible-sounding semantic model of any proposition stated in natural language that renders that proposition true or false. But natural language utterances actually do mean things despite their inherent ambiguity. When someone says "Smoking causes cancer" they mean, "Smoking a lot produces a statistically significant increase in your risk of developing cancer." They do not mean, "Smoking one cigarette is guaranteed to give you cancer." Picking at semantic nits is counterproductive. There's probably even a name for it as a logical fallacy but I'm too lazy and frustrated at the general state of discourse in the world to bother looking it up right now.
- chestervonwinch 6y ago
  > There's probably even a name for it as a logical fallacy... Maybe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
- themodelplumber 6y ago
  > perverse semantics Hmm. I'm curious as to the value of attaching such an archaic, subjective values-oriented term as "perverse" to the label here. What does "perverse" mean in this context, and is it really expected to sway opinions with what appears on its face to be rather emotional language? > But natural language utterances actually do mean things despite their inherent ambiguity This statement seems to work in anyone's favor, or no one's, where the argument is concerned... > Smoking a lot produces a statistically significant increase in your risk of developing cancer With an error rate of...zero? With a bell curve of...? With a qualitatively superior study based on the population of...? Let us have the study. Let us tear it apart. What do we have to lose by admitting that smoking may not cause cancer in this way or that one? > They do not mean, "Smoking one cigarette is guaranteed to give you cancer" Your assumption, but not mine. For all I know, smoking one cigarette may do the job. > Picking at semantic nits is counterproductive. Why? Details are important. > There's probably even a name for it as a logical fallacy Even logical fallacies are not fallacies when they are relevant to the discussion at hand. This is Logical Fallacy 101--see the "Fallacy Fallacy". > I'm too lazy and frustrated at the general state of discourse in the world to bother looking it up right now. This is discourse, right here. Bringing frustration into it is fine, but there's no guarantee it won't affect the quality of the discourse...