9 ms·

I don't know if this is quite what you mean, but I've had more than one discussion (and seen many more online on twitter, reddit) that goes something like: >Al

I don't know if this is quite what you mean, but I've had more than one discussion (and seen many more online on twitter, reddit) that goes something like: >Alice: say, for the sake of argument, that A is true >Bob: But A isn't true? >Alice: Whether A is true or not is a different question. For the purposes of our conversation (that we're talking about the consequences of A being true), it is. >Bob: But... A isn't true. >Alice: I give up! >Bob: I win! For Bob, it seems to be completely impossible to talk "stipulatively". It's equal parts frustrating and baffling to me that some people just can't understand the concept of talking about logical conclusions from some starting point independently from the veracity of that starting point, and I'd agree it's one of the big issues with (online) discourse today.

cogman10 4y ago
I've had your exact discussion both online and in person, You aren't alone. Sometimes online, I suspect it's insincere. They know why you are doing the hypothetical, it hurts their position, so instead of engaging with it they become absolutists. Other times, though (especially easy to see in person) it is VERY real. They simply are not capable of dealing with hypotheticals. Where that came up the most for me was when tutoring math in college. The abstract nature of math past algebra was just something some people could not grok. They wanted the hard and fast facts. "Ask me to do 7 * 5 and I'll have that answer in an instant, don't ask me riddles about x * 5 = 35".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nine_k 4y ago
Alice need to adapt to Bob's perception if she wants him to listen. "If we lived in a completely imaginary world where A were true" could address Bob's sensibilities a bit better. First make yourself heard, then make your point. Otherwise your point falls on deaf ears. This takes some ability to listen and tailor your arguments to fit your audience.
- rukuu001 4y ago
  "Let's imagine an alternate universe, where A is true. What else would be true in that case?"
tbrownaw 4y ago
>Bob: False premises lead to absurd conclusions. Therefore your demand that I agree to a "hypothetical" that we both know is false, is an attempt to pull a fast one somehow.
- ajuc 4y ago
  Alice: have you heard of proofs by contradiction?
  - arthurcolle 4y ago
    Bob: Segmentation fault! (core dumped)
  - revolvingocelot 4y ago
    The Alices I speak to are rarely interested in this. It's usually an attempt to sneak in a plank of an argument to support some repugnant conclusion, without which plank said conclusion seems suspiciously like bigotry or a just-so story. Trickle-down economics, racial superiority, social spending, flat earthism, the divine right of kings, debt-to-GDP ratio-hacking, systemd, etc etc
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      This is where Bob claims to be an expert on Alice's motives (the motives that all people with her opinion secretly have), refuses to further participate in any discussions that allow Alice to contribute, and accuses anyone else who allows Alice to participate of carrying water for trickle-down economics, racial superiority, social spending, flat earthism, the divine right of kings, debt-to-GDP ratio-hacking, systemd, etc etc. edit: not begging the question is literal racism.
      - revolvingocelot 4y ago
        Refusing to bow down to false premises is not claiming to be an expert on anyone's motives, but I sure think insisting that false premises disguised as hypotheticals are meaningful contributions to support any conclusion is wrong as hell. That's right, I said it -- defending a conclusion based on made-up facts is wrong as hell. Yes, I'm willing to die on this hill, I guess I'm just old-fashioned in my desire to discuss reality...
dataflow 4y ago
I've been, and will probably continue to be, on both sides of this. The problem is that not every "A" deserves counterfactual analysis for both parties 100% of the time. As a silly nonpolitical example, imagine if A is "the earth is flat". I would be Bob in that example, because, well... I am not really willing to spend the time and effort required to debate the topic seriously every time it comes up, and I think most people are similar in this respect. It's not about cognitive ability, it's just that most people don't see the point of engaging in every conversation that's based on premises that are manifestly untrue to them.
- meany 4y ago
  I agree that direct debate is a waste of time in these situations, and I as understand, research shows only makes the flat-earther more adamant. In situations like this, I focus on trying to understand what the emotional underlying driver is that moves people to support these kinds of views and see if I can engage with that. Humans are not primarily logical. Our views are heavily driven by need for acceptance by our community or to rationalize our uniqueness/importance, both which relate back to our survival
  - dataflow 4y ago
    > I focus on trying to understand what the emotional underlying driver is that moves people to support these kinds of views and see if I can engage with that. Humans are not primarily logical. Now imagine if A was "you committed this crime yesterday". There are so many reasons beyond "acting emotionally" over why perfectly logical people wouldn't entertain a premise like that.
    - TeMPOraL 4y ago
      > Now imagine if A was "you committed this crime yesterday". There are so many reasons beyond "acting emotionally" over why perfectly logical people wouldn't entertain a premise like that. You'd have to have some pretty non-standard circumstances. I have no problem entertaining such counterfactual in a normal discussion. I'd only squirm if there was a risk the conversation would be used against me - e.g. quoted by a journalist, a law enforcement officer, or some crazy rando on Twitter, with the fact that it was a hypothetical conveniently omitted.
netsharc 4y ago
If Bob had heard the phrase before, maybe he'd say "I don't deal with hypotheticals". If I were Alice, that would make me see Bob as smart as an amoeba, because even animals deal with "What if" scenarios...
MaysonL 4y ago
if A is false then A implies B is true, whatever the truth value of B is. Thus arguing from a false premise is meaningless.
- josephg 4y ago
  “If there was a bug in module X, we’d see this exact behaviour…” “But there’s definitely no bug there! I wrote that code myself!” These conversations seem pretty useful to me.
- sicp-enjoyer 4y ago
  That's a nice factoid, but if you read a little further in the logic book you would learn it's quite useful. Proving implications, such a B -> C can be an important step in themselves. It's also essential for proofs by contradiction and proofs of impossibility. Even if you were right, that particular definition of implication is just convention. There are other logical systems and views that don't interpret it that way.
nootropicat 4y ago
The problem with doing this in an adversarial online setting is that it's often used as a trick to make someone admit to some position that's 'close' to the original, and then spin that as agreeing to the original position. Especially on twitter where post length forces shortcuts which are very easy to maliciously leverage. In some cases if the assumption is what's being argued itself doing this is an attempt at manipulation, not genuine discussion.
anotherman554 4y ago
Can you think of a scenario where you would be playing the role of Bob, not Alice, here? Suppose it went down this way: Alice: Say, for the sake of argument, Bob beats his wife. Bob: But I don't beat my wife... Alice: Whether you beat your wife or not is a different question. For purposes of our conversation about consequences you beat your wife. In this scenario Bob understands the implication of logical conclusions but considers the conversation to be a trap.

cogman10 4y ago

I've had your exact discussion both online and in person, You aren't alone. Sometimes online, I suspect it's insincere. They know why you are doing the hypothetical, it hurts their position, so instead of engaging with it they become absolutists. Other times, though (especially easy to see in person) it is VERY real. They simply are not capable of dealing with hypotheticals. Where that came up the most for me was when tutoring math in college. The abstract nature of math past algebra was just something some people could not grok. They wanted the hard and fast facts. "Ask me to do 7 * 5 and I'll have that answer in an instant, don't ask me riddles about x * 5 = 35".

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nine_k 4y ago

Alice need to adapt to Bob's perception if she wants him to listen. "If we lived in a completely imaginary world where A were true" could address Bob's sensibilities a bit better. First make yourself heard, then make your point. Otherwise your point falls on deaf ears. This takes some ability to listen and tailor your arguments to fit your audience.

rukuu001 4y ago
"Let's imagine an alternate universe, where A is true. What else would be true in that case?"

tbrownaw 4y ago

>Bob: False premises lead to absurd conclusions. Therefore your demand that I agree to a "hypothetical" that we both know is false, is an attempt to pull a fast one somehow.

ajuc 4y ago
Alice: have you heard of proofs by contradiction?
- arthurcolle 4y ago
  Bob: Segmentation fault! (core dumped)
- revolvingocelot 4y ago
  The Alices I speak to are rarely interested in this. It's usually an attempt to sneak in a plank of an argument to support some repugnant conclusion, without which plank said conclusion seems suspiciously like bigotry or a just-so story. Trickle-down economics, racial superiority, social spending, flat earthism, the divine right of kings, debt-to-GDP ratio-hacking, systemd, etc etc
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    This is where Bob claims to be an expert on Alice's motives (the motives that all people with her opinion secretly have), refuses to further participate in any discussions that allow Alice to contribute, and accuses anyone else who allows Alice to participate of carrying water for trickle-down economics, racial superiority, social spending, flat earthism, the divine right of kings, debt-to-GDP ratio-hacking, systemd, etc etc. edit: not begging the question is literal racism.
    - revolvingocelot 4y ago
      Refusing to bow down to false premises is not claiming to be an expert on anyone's motives, but I sure think insisting that false premises disguised as hypotheticals are meaningful contributions to support any conclusion is wrong as hell. That's right, I said it -- defending a conclusion based on made-up facts is wrong as hell. Yes, I'm willing to die on this hill, I guess I'm just old-fashioned in my desire to discuss reality...

dataflow 4y ago

I've been, and will probably continue to be, on both sides of this. The problem is that not every "A" deserves counterfactual analysis for both parties 100% of the time. As a silly nonpolitical example, imagine if A is "the earth is flat". I would be Bob in that example, because, well... I am not really willing to spend the time and effort required to debate the topic seriously every time it comes up, and I think most people are similar in this respect. It's not about cognitive ability, it's just that most people don't see the point of engaging in every conversation that's based on premises that are manifestly untrue to them.

meany 4y ago
I agree that direct debate is a waste of time in these situations, and I as understand, research shows only makes the flat-earther more adamant. In situations like this, I focus on trying to understand what the emotional underlying driver is that moves people to support these kinds of views and see if I can engage with that. Humans are not primarily logical. Our views are heavily driven by need for acceptance by our community or to rationalize our uniqueness/importance, both which relate back to our survival
- dataflow 4y ago
  > I focus on trying to understand what the emotional underlying driver is that moves people to support these kinds of views and see if I can engage with that. Humans are not primarily logical. Now imagine if A was "you committed this crime yesterday". There are so many reasons beyond "acting emotionally" over why perfectly logical people wouldn't entertain a premise like that.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    > Now imagine if A was "you committed this crime yesterday". There are so many reasons beyond "acting emotionally" over why perfectly logical people wouldn't entertain a premise like that. You'd have to have some pretty non-standard circumstances. I have no problem entertaining such counterfactual in a normal discussion. I'd only squirm if there was a risk the conversation would be used against me - e.g. quoted by a journalist, a law enforcement officer, or some crazy rando on Twitter, with the fact that it was a hypothetical conveniently omitted.

netsharc 4y ago

If Bob had heard the phrase before, maybe he'd say "I don't deal with hypotheticals". If I were Alice, that would make me see Bob as smart as an amoeba, because even animals deal with "What if" scenarios...

MaysonL 4y ago

if A is false then A implies B is true, whatever the truth value of B is. Thus arguing from a false premise is meaningless.

josephg 4y ago
“If there was a bug in module X, we’d see this exact behaviour…” “But there’s definitely no bug there! I wrote that code myself!” These conversations seem pretty useful to me.
sicp-enjoyer 4y ago
That's a nice factoid, but if you read a little further in the logic book you would learn it's quite useful. Proving implications, such a B -> C can be an important step in themselves. It's also essential for proofs by contradiction and proofs of impossibility. Even if you were right, that particular definition of implication is just convention. There are other logical systems and views that don't interpret it that way.

nootropicat 4y ago

The problem with doing this in an adversarial online setting is that it's often used as a trick to make someone admit to some position that's 'close' to the original, and then spin that as agreeing to the original position. Especially on twitter where post length forces shortcuts which are very easy to maliciously leverage. In some cases if the assumption is what's being argued itself doing this is an attempt at manipulation, not genuine discussion.

anotherman554 4y ago

Can you think of a scenario where you would be playing the role of Bob, not Alice, here? Suppose it went down this way: Alice: Say, for the sake of argument, Bob beats his wife. Bob: But I don't beat my wife... Alice: Whether you beat your wife or not is a different question. For purposes of our conversation about consequences you beat your wife. In this scenario Bob understands the implication of logical conclusions but considers the conversation to be a trap.