7 ms·

I agree with the sentiment but it seems to me that if someone presents a new, compelling argument against a belief you hold then shouldn’t you change your mind

I agree with the sentiment but it seems to me that if someone presents a new, compelling argument against a belief you hold then shouldn’t you change your mind immediately? It seems to me that how fast one’s mind ought to change depends on the quality of the new information/ideas you are presented with.

_Algernon_ 3y ago
This would only be true if evaluating the quality of new information was instant. It's not.
- nomel 3y ago
  Bollocks. I would claim that if this doesn't happen frequently, while you're a young adult, then there's a high chance that you're missing out on/ignoring perspectives outside of your family/social bubble. It can happen, and has happened to me several times, as an adult. But, I agree that it probably shouldn't be frequent. Sometimes genuine facts are presented that should immediately change a perspective.
  - Shugarl 3y ago
    I think you're right, but you're missing the point : There's nothing easy or instantaneous about knowing whether or not a fact is genuine. People can lie, can lie by omission, can try to influence your opinion by choosing carefully how they present the facts, and so on. You can always choose to trust some people/institutions, but that's trusting/believing, not knowing.
    - nomel 3y ago
      I don't believe I'm missing the point. You seem to be assuming that people are incapable of observing/verifying/creating their own facts. I don't see that being implied in this comment chain, and it's definitely not true.
  - _Algernon_ 3y ago
    If you reread my comment you'll notice that I am not talking about the frequency of new information being encountered. I'm not sure why you bring it up, especially in such a confrontational manner. What I am talking about is the process that starts once you encounter a new piece of information that challenges your world view: the process of evaluating if it is of quality (ie. trustworthy), or just appears so superficially. That process is not instant, and if you treat it as an instantaneous process, you're probably going to accept a lot of superficially trustworthy information (including scams, mis- and disinformation, and so on).
    - nomel 3y ago
      > I am not talking about the frequency of new information being encountered Neither am I. I'm saying that instantaneous adjustment to ones beliefs is possible, and should be a regular occurrence, while developing ones world view. > accept a lot of superficially trustworthy information No. Sometimes you can see things with your own eyes, or have a person that is trustworthy say or demonstrate them to you. Sometimes occurrences can prove a belief immediately true or false. A great example is a child realizing, for the first time, that an adult can be wrong about something. Or, a young adult who voted for the first time, realizing that politicians lie to get elected. Or someone taking drugs for the first time, to realize that perception is fundamentally fragile. There are many many examples. Again, it should be a regular occurrence, when young. > confrontational I didn't mean to. I consider "bollocks" to show, somewhat silly, disagreement/defiance. I don't consider defiance or disagreement of an opinion to be confrontational.
c22 3y ago
People who are good at rationalizing can create a compelling argument in support of almost any position. I like to use a statistical approach where I note the prevalence of each compelling argument across a variety of sources.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Same, except I weigh the average based on whether or not the source agrees with my original off-the-cuff take!
- c22 3y ago
  Downvoters: Do you disagree that people who are good at rationalizing can create compelling arguments? Or do you disagree with using a statistical approach to vet competing arguments? Asking for a friend!
  - _Algernon_ 3y ago
    To be clear, I didn't downvote, but I guess people find it hard to believe that you sit down to do the calculations for a Bayesian update of your belief state for each piece of information you encounter. I assume that your "statistical approach" translates to a much more haphazardly approach that's similar to how other people do it (gut feeling, based on rules of thumb and heuristics), and describing it as statistical is disingenious.
    - c22 3y ago
      I guess that's fair. I don't really run any numbers when I update my beliefs because usually the "winning" hypothesis enjoys near-saturation of my trusted sources and often the "plausible but novel rationalization" turns out to be a unique snowflake in the landscape. If I notice the same novel argument getting picked up from somewhat-independent multiple directions I revisit it and apply a more rigorous rethink. This is what I mean by a "statistical" approach. Perhaps some other word would have been better. I do, however, pretty regularly sit down with some graph paper or an envelope and review/diversify my trusted sources.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
There are new, compelling arguments... sometimes. But more often there are new arguments that appear compelling, but after some time thinking, you can see that there is a major hole. And there are other new arguments that appear compelling, but they are based on "facts" that are not actually true. There's nothing wrong with taking time to really think through the presented argument, looking for holes, before you accept it. In fact, it helps you not fall for fine-sounding nonsense.
- synetic 3y ago
  My comment wasn’t about the sometimes you refer to. It wasn’t about what appears to be compelling. My comment was on being presented with something that is compelling. It may not be instantaneous that one is able to determine that the argument/information is compelling but once this is determined one ought to change their mind. The comment I responded to talked about a gradual change in beliefs. I proposed that in the face of compelling new information or argument that one ought to change their mind immediately (after determining it is compelling). More succinctly, there are times when one should change their mind much more rapidly than gradually.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    Most arguments aren't like a mathematical proof, where you can follow it and be certain that it is correct on one reading. For most arguments, the more time goes by, the more I trust my opinion that the argument holds water. So I change my mind gradually.
    - synetic 3y ago
      I’m curious. Why are you talking about a situation that does not pertain to the premise of the post I made? I’ve stated, I think explicitly, the type of situation I’m talking about and it is not the type of situation you are talking about. I’ve made no claims about what one should do in the cases that you are talking about. I suppose you think there are no circumstances under which a person ought to change their mind “on the spot” so to speak. If you can think of such a circumstance then what is the point you are tying to get across?
photonerd 3y ago
> if someone presents a new, compelling argument against a belief you hold then shouldn’t you change your mind immediately? Change? No. Question? Yes. Question, probe, & investigate. An argument may be good but applicable only to a narrow field of something, or be a valid exception to a general principle, etc. It also may be compelling but on further examination be fundamentally flawed or rely on logical errors (most of the more advanced religious apologetics are like this). It should absolutely cause a reevaluation of your belief, but that’s not the same as necessitating it be outright changed. It might sound like quibbling, but I feel that’s an important difference. One I feel is key to intellectual rigor & honesty.
jahewson 3y ago
No because it would also require compelling evidence. Certainly I would entertain a statistically probable argument to an extent. Sometimes there are compelling arguments in both directions and we have to accept not knowing.
c_crank 3y ago
An argument isn't evidence. Physical evidence should be the only thing that causes a quick and instant shift in views, and the situations where this evidence is clear and obvious enough to warrant this are not so common.
- nomel 3y ago
  This ignores the concept of trust, which is real and useful.
  - c_crank 3y ago
    Trust is great when it can be trusted. When trust is abused, great tragedies occur.
purpleblue 3y ago
It depends on how compelling the evidence is, and how verifiable it is. I don't think the speed to which you change your mind matters, it's just that you are open-minded enough to change your mind. If you hold a strong belief and someone gives compelling evidence that makes you pause on your strong belief, then that in and of itself is enough. You don't have to go hook line and sinker at the very first piece of evidence, because it's the preponderance of evidence that changes minds. The very first experiment that showed the duality of light didn't immediately change people's minds, but it broke the seal, and the accumulation of evidence did afterwards.
twic 3y ago
You should only change your mind right away if you are confident both that the argument is compelling, and that your ability to accurately evaluate the compellingness of arguments is strong.
theptip 3y ago
You’re right. A good Bayesian will update their beliefs proportionally to the strength of the evidence. Strong evidence should update your beliefs strongly. My general take is that people are too slow to update their beliefs when strong new evidence comes in. But are generally willing to update gradually over time even with bad/weak evidence.

_Algernon_ 3y ago

This would only be true if evaluating the quality of new information was instant. It's not.

nomel 3y ago
Bollocks. I would claim that if this doesn't happen frequently, while you're a young adult, then there's a high chance that you're missing out on/ignoring perspectives outside of your family/social bubble. It can happen, and has happened to me several times, as an adult. But, I agree that it probably shouldn't be frequent. Sometimes genuine facts are presented that should immediately change a perspective.
- Shugarl 3y ago
  I think you're right, but you're missing the point : There's nothing easy or instantaneous about knowing whether or not a fact is genuine. People can lie, can lie by omission, can try to influence your opinion by choosing carefully how they present the facts, and so on. You can always choose to trust some people/institutions, but that's trusting/believing, not knowing.
  - nomel 3y ago
    I don't believe I'm missing the point. You seem to be assuming that people are incapable of observing/verifying/creating their own facts. I don't see that being implied in this comment chain, and it's definitely not true.
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  If you reread my comment you'll notice that I am not talking about the frequency of new information being encountered. I'm not sure why you bring it up, especially in such a confrontational manner. What I am talking about is the process that starts once you encounter a new piece of information that challenges your world view: the process of evaluating if it is of quality (ie. trustworthy), or just appears so superficially. That process is not instant, and if you treat it as an instantaneous process, you're probably going to accept a lot of superficially trustworthy information (including scams, mis- and disinformation, and so on).
  - nomel 3y ago
    > I am not talking about the frequency of new information being encountered Neither am I. I'm saying that instantaneous adjustment to ones beliefs is possible, and should be a regular occurrence, while developing ones world view. > accept a lot of superficially trustworthy information No. Sometimes you can see things with your own eyes, or have a person that is trustworthy say or demonstrate them to you. Sometimes occurrences can prove a belief immediately true or false. A great example is a child realizing, for the first time, that an adult can be wrong about something. Or, a young adult who voted for the first time, realizing that politicians lie to get elected. Or someone taking drugs for the first time, to realize that perception is fundamentally fragile. There are many many examples. Again, it should be a regular occurrence, when young. > confrontational I didn't mean to. I consider "bollocks" to show, somewhat silly, disagreement/defiance. I don't consider defiance or disagreement of an opinion to be confrontational.

c22 3y ago

People who are good at rationalizing can create a compelling argument in support of almost any position. I like to use a statistical approach where I note the prevalence of each compelling argument across a variety of sources.

bee_rider 3y ago
Same, except I weigh the average based on whether or not the source agrees with my original off-the-cuff take!
c22 3y ago
Downvoters: Do you disagree that people who are good at rationalizing can create compelling arguments? Or do you disagree with using a statistical approach to vet competing arguments? Asking for a friend!
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  To be clear, I didn't downvote, but I guess people find it hard to believe that you sit down to do the calculations for a Bayesian update of your belief state for each piece of information you encounter. I assume that your "statistical approach" translates to a much more haphazardly approach that's similar to how other people do it (gut feeling, based on rules of thumb and heuristics), and describing it as statistical is disingenious.
  - c22 3y ago
    I guess that's fair. I don't really run any numbers when I update my beliefs because usually the "winning" hypothesis enjoys near-saturation of my trusted sources and often the "plausible but novel rationalization" turns out to be a unique snowflake in the landscape. If I notice the same novel argument getting picked up from somewhat-independent multiple directions I revisit it and apply a more rigorous rethink. This is what I mean by a "statistical" approach. Perhaps some other word would have been better. I do, however, pretty regularly sit down with some graph paper or an envelope and review/diversify my trusted sources.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

There are new, compelling arguments... sometimes. But more often there are new arguments that appear compelling, but after some time thinking, you can see that there is a major hole. And there are other new arguments that appear compelling, but they are based on "facts" that are not actually true. There's nothing wrong with taking time to really think through the presented argument, looking for holes, before you accept it. In fact, it helps you not fall for fine-sounding nonsense.

synetic 3y ago
My comment wasn’t about the sometimes you refer to. It wasn’t about what appears to be compelling. My comment was on being presented with something that is compelling. It may not be instantaneous that one is able to determine that the argument/information is compelling but once this is determined one ought to change their mind. The comment I responded to talked about a gradual change in beliefs. I proposed that in the face of compelling new information or argument that one ought to change their mind immediately (after determining it is compelling). More succinctly, there are times when one should change their mind much more rapidly than gradually.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Most arguments aren't like a mathematical proof, where you can follow it and be certain that it is correct on one reading. For most arguments, the more time goes by, the more I trust my opinion that the argument holds water. So I change my mind gradually.
  - synetic 3y ago
    I’m curious. Why are you talking about a situation that does not pertain to the premise of the post I made? I’ve stated, I think explicitly, the type of situation I’m talking about and it is not the type of situation you are talking about. I’ve made no claims about what one should do in the cases that you are talking about. I suppose you think there are no circumstances under which a person ought to change their mind “on the spot” so to speak. If you can think of such a circumstance then what is the point you are tying to get across?

photonerd 3y ago

> if someone presents a new, compelling argument against a belief you hold then shouldn’t you change your mind immediately? Change? No. Question? Yes. Question, probe, & investigate. An argument may be good but applicable only to a narrow field of something, or be a valid exception to a general principle, etc. It also may be compelling but on further examination be fundamentally flawed or rely on logical errors (most of the more advanced religious apologetics are like this). It should absolutely cause a reevaluation of your belief, but that’s not the same as necessitating it be outright changed. It might sound like quibbling, but I feel that’s an important difference. One I feel is key to intellectual rigor & honesty.

jahewson 3y ago

No because it would also require compelling evidence. Certainly I would entertain a statistically probable argument to an extent. Sometimes there are compelling arguments in both directions and we have to accept not knowing.

c_crank 3y ago

An argument isn't evidence. Physical evidence should be the only thing that causes a quick and instant shift in views, and the situations where this evidence is clear and obvious enough to warrant this are not so common.

nomel 3y ago
This ignores the concept of trust, which is real and useful.
- c_crank 3y ago
  Trust is great when it can be trusted. When trust is abused, great tragedies occur.

purpleblue 3y ago

It depends on how compelling the evidence is, and how verifiable it is. I don't think the speed to which you change your mind matters, it's just that you are open-minded enough to change your mind. If you hold a strong belief and someone gives compelling evidence that makes you pause on your strong belief, then that in and of itself is enough. You don't have to go hook line and sinker at the very first piece of evidence, because it's the preponderance of evidence that changes minds. The very first experiment that showed the duality of light didn't immediately change people's minds, but it broke the seal, and the accumulation of evidence did afterwards.

twic 3y ago

You should only change your mind right away if you are confident both that the argument is compelling, and that your ability to accurately evaluate the compellingness of arguments is strong.

theptip 3y ago

You’re right. A good Bayesian will update their beliefs proportionally to the strength of the evidence. Strong evidence should update your beliefs strongly. My general take is that people are too slow to update their beliefs when strong new evidence comes in. But are generally willing to update gradually over time even with bad/weak evidence.