9 ms·
Socrates on the blessing of being refuted
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- totetsu 5y agoif holding the wrong opinion in a conversation is morally wrong, one ought to converse in a way that welcomes and seeks being refuted. I see some echoes of this in the advice about steelmanning friends and family who are in to conspiracies. But it's hard to imagine going into a conversation with say a flat earth theory believer and really want to be proven wrong about the sphere..
- goodpoint 5y agoYou cannot have a honest conversation (AKA being open to change your mind) while engaging in a morally unacceptable debate. Instead, refuse to have such debate. You can then explain your refusal.
- SuoDuanDao 5y agoWhat would you consider a morally unacceptable debate? Or is that question itself morally unacceptable to engage with?
- Razengan 5y agoOh man…
- abecedarius 5y ago"I won't debate you" is fine. "Anyone who does gets tainted by the other side's cooties" is not. There are loud people aggressively pushing that norm and trying to blur this distinction.
- NikolaNovak 5y agoHmm, what is a morally unacceptable debate? How is it defined and who agrees to the definition? I've been trying very hard most of my life not to have mental or discussion taboos. I may find a position, request, action, etc disagreeable or even reprehensible, but I see no winning outcome in making it a taboo. And I struggle to visualize a debate itself that is morally unacceptable. Quite the opposite. (on the other hand there are certainly debates I am tired of, amd frequently ponder how to handle people / situations that bring same tired arguments I've seen rehashed, and usually debunked, myriad times before. But that's not the same as morally unacceptable that's just me being lazy and or having limited time and energy on this earth :)
- tenebrisalietum 5y agoProposed definition of "immoral debates": An immoral debate depends on the definition of a corrupt debate. A corrupt debate is where: 1) debaters willfully produce responses that contain bad arguments or logical fallacies 2) debaters willfully conduct arguments toward an audience without knowledge of logical fallacies and/or without knowledge of critical thinking 3) debaters willfully conduct arguments in a venue or theater where non-logical aspects of communication could manipulate the behavior of others, and leverage those aspects in the delivery of their arguments. A corrupt debate is an immoral debate if performed where the debate is part of a process affecting a large number of people who consider themselves a society, because: 1) while those debating look like they are arguing and analyzing an issue, and trying to come to a logically correct conclusion, they are really manipulating an audience to effect a desired outcome, 2) if debate is the foundation of determining the direction of a society, corrupt debate skews it towards the will of specific individuals rather than objective truth.
- redler 5y agoSounds like what the US Senate has become, unfortunately.
- vraks 5y agoSo basically an "immoral debate" would be one that's propaganda in disguise? But why would it be inherently immoral to knowingly propagandize a false idea? What if believing a particular false idea leads to behavior that's safer in large scale? For example, you convince everyone that, I don't know, gasoline makes you impotent. Your rhetoric is so good that everyone is convinced, even in the absence of evidence, and people stop driving so much and pollution is reduced. Is it immoral to use rhetoric to spread false ideas for a good reason?
- friedman23 5y agoIt sounds like you hold a lot of questionable moral beliefs that you refuse to take a hard look at.
- goodpoint 5y agoIt sounds like you are projecting.
- friedman23 5y agoHow so? I don't have a problem with my beliefs being questioned or discussed.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- tremon 5y agoHere, the quote by J.S. Mill comes to the rescue: > But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion This applies to flat earth theory believers as well. If they are unable to refute the reasons for the sphere theory, they have no ground for preferring either theory. There's also the part "where he must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest" and I have a hard time imagining that most conspiracy theorists actually believe their theories -- in my experience, most people cling to conspiracy theories because they're more convenient to them; the need to believe is stronger than the actual belief. But that viewpoint is exactly what Socrates was denouncing ;)
- agumonkey 5y agoI find it extraordinary that in this day and age we're reaching levels of discourse so low level about such trivial ignorance. Really extraordinary, we're rediscussing (or re-wasting time) beliefs, truth, reality in ways I'd never think possible today.
- my_usernam3 5y ago> most people cling to conspiracy theories because they're more convenient to them The trend I've noticed is the theories or beliefs are being attached to one's own identity. Once engrained, it's hard to ever openly view other opposing beliefs.
- dvt 5y ago> if holding the wrong opinion in a conversation is morally wrong This is trivially answered in the negative. Arguing for sport is done all the time, and holding a "Devil's advocate" position should be done routinely to test the strength one's own arguments.
- newbamboo 5y agoWhich is why moral relativism is so degenerate.
- NikolaNovak 5y agoElaborate, please?
- zalo 5y agoAre you kidding? If someone really has good evidence for the Earth being flat, that could potentially be one of the most important observations of all time! As the Litany of Tarski goes: “If the Earth is flat, I desire to believe the Earth is flat…” etc. (Though, I will admit that it gets boring later when you’ve heard all the arguments and rebuttals.)
- rgrieselhuber 5y agoI have yet to hear a FE believer explain their position without them raising their voice.
- cmurf 5y agoSame for "microwaves are bad" believers. They are angry people. Over what, I do not know, but I think they have a deep fear of their own ignorance and use anger to compensate. Somehow they learned at a young age the winner of an argument is perceived as correct or smart, and the way to win is to wear people down. Every conversation is arm wrestling.
- steelstraw 5y agoJoe Rogan actually just made that basic point in his response regarding the Spotify controversy. He thanked even his haters and addressed the concerns. Some changes have already been made. He was very gracious to Neil Young to boot. https://www.instagram.com/tv/CZYQ_nDJi6G/ https://www.instagram.com/tv/CZYQ_nDJi6G/ If more people had that kind of response and mindset, maybe we could get back to solving problems instead of the constant tit for tat tribalism that is in the process of destroying us.
- teachrdan 5y agoHonest question: If Joe Rogan continues to amplify the voices of conspiracists, and his listeners continue to heed them -- for example, by refusing to get vaccinated against Covid -- does his thanking his "haters" matter? Isn't the point that he should stop providing a platform to people who deny that Covid is a threat or that climate change is real? I don't mean to sound like a dick here. But I think it's a bit of a red herring to focus on the quality of someone's apology when they continue to do harm.
- rsfayez 5y ago> "But I think it's a bit of a red herring to focus on the quality of someone's apology when they continue to do harm." 1000000% agreed
- the-dude 5y agoJust for the record : I don't deny that COVID is a threat, and still I am not vaccinated and probably won't be. And it is not because I have complications, I just don't feel like it.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- steelstraw 5y agoI reject that hypothesis. Open dialogue is not what's harmful and those who seek to silence or censor have never ended up on the right side of history. The only thing that works over the course of time is fighting bad information with better information. Besides, no one could do as much damage as the official sources have done to themselves throughout the Covid pandemic. People are just forgetting the mountain of misinformation they spread. Starting with "masks don't work" and "closing travel is racist" and "the possibility of a lab leak is a crazy conspiracy theory". Big tech actually banned people for that and yet still think they should be the gatekeepers? Where is the humility? That's an environment not unlike that of Gallio. Which the church and priests who assert themselves as the source of truth while expelling the heretics.
- optimalsolver 5y agoFunny, coz Socrates' interlocutors in Plato's dialogues exist only to agree and affirm all his arguments like bobbleheads, or to be epically dunked on. Epistemic humility is more discussed for signalling purposes than actually practiced. The Republic is a particularly notable example of this kind of thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqGsg01ycpk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqGsg01ycpk
- dfxm12 5y agoI think the article is operating under the false assumption that most political discourse is meant to be a Socratic conversation. It's really not. Look at a political debate, or a talking heads show on cable news. There is no truth that is sought out, no hypotheses to accept, no exploration of if a conclusion follows the premises logically. All there is, is persuasive sound bytes, with no deference paid to the truth and no refraining from the "false opinion concerning the subjects of the present conversation". The media drives a lot of this with the format of their shows/political debates. I'm sure these sound bytes are better for ratings, but they are poor for getting to the bottom of a political platform and how that's really best for the general population.
- beebmam 5y agoPublic debate is performance for the audiences. Private debate can absolutely be like Socratic dialogue
- pasabagi 5y agoI don't know what Socratic dialogues you've been reading, but if somebody started speaking like they were out of one near me, I'd probably report them for being a replicant.
- jhoechtl 5y ago> The media drives a lot of this with the format of their shows/political debates. I'm sure these sound bytes are better for ratings, but they are poor for getting to the bottom of a political platform and how that's really best for the general population. I only developed a more informed sense to follow the political sphere like five years ago or so. This is so true, the media and their need for quotes makes so many debates into a farce. Politicians seem like being in front of a judge instead of a truth-seeking interviewer. Not that politicians are overly known for truth-seeking but there is a certain line between for a reporter being investigative and sensational.
- marginalia_nu 5y agoThis is not all that different from the Athens Socrates operated in. A significant portion of Plato's work portrays Socrates interrogating various forms of sophists, politicians, generals; the "talking heads" of his time. Socrates was a notorious weirdo, a bit like the Richard Stallman of Athens.
- motohagiography 5y agoThe anti-pattern version of this reminds me of a phrase I can't seem to source, which is, "to question by assertion," which means making assertions with the intent that the listener respond by refuting them. It's a really fast technique to get information (I think I learned it from reporters, prosecutors, or perhaps just my mother), where you assert the contrapositive or a begged question about the thing you want to know, and use the churning brain of the listener parsing it through to yield their view. It's supremely irritating and emotionally abusive to anyone who trusts you, and viewed this way I can see how Socrates got himself whacked, but I'd wonder if this tactic has a name in another discipline. The only effective defense is to blow off the question, set a firm personal boundary where you don't feel obligated to answer any questions at all because they aren't sincere inquiries, and dismiss them as traps. If only Socrates were alive to have someone "well, actually..." him on the internet.