Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 307 posts

Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

#221

Post by Nursie »

crististm wrote: post #217
Nursie wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry I don't know what you're talking about any more. You seem to be trying to say that the use of hunches and soft knowledge to form the basis of inquiry and test somehow contradicts or weakens the idea that the world around us can be best understood by the scientific method. "Hypothesis" is not knowledge, nor are such generated by magic, and they only become knowledge when tested (or contradicted). As for the…

Let's go from "hypothesis" are not being generated by magic. I'm asking: how can I generate hypothesis? Are you in possession of a scientific method for generating hypothesis? Can you share it? Scientific method can do so much but I guess you have made up your mind already.

And I'm asking you why that's important?

Hypothesis is not knowledge until tested.

Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

#222

Post by antihero »

jahnu wrote: post #122
vintermann wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine that there's a meteor heading towards earth. All evidence suggests that it will hit in three days, and wipe out all multicellular life - it's a big one. What do you do? How do you live your life your last three days? One school of thought says, disregard the evidence. Assert, against it all, that the meteor is going to miss. Or if that's hard, decide to trust someone who asserts it (this is usually easier). T…

That's the essence of Pascal's Wager. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

Isn't using Pascal's wager to support faith kind of broken due to the idea that for any possibility that there's a God who rewards you with a happy life for belief in them, there's an equal possibility that there's an evil God, who punishes you for belief in them?

Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

#223

Post by BatFastard »

cristianpascu wrote: post #170
andrepd wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most people are not idiots. If they disagree with you, it's probably not because they are being irrational, but because they're starting from a different premise, making different assumptions, or assigning different values to different aspects of the problem. This is probably one of the most insightful things you can ever read. Internalise this and your whole way of approaching others will be changed. This is valid…

I too agree wholeheartedly. It took me many years (35yo now) to learn this, the very hard way, on internet and specially in life. A MD in Philosophy helped a lot, or it's been actually essential for my life path. Interesting, given that I'm a 'creationist idiot' (I won't go into details), I never actually debate this with anyone that doesn't have the theological (and hermeneutical skills) necessary to understand WHY…

>Regarding life in general, no amount of patience will harm you.

It depends on what you consider "harm", while you may not physical be harmed, you can sure waste a lot of your life trying to explain concepts that people are not willing to hear.

Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

#225

Post by crististm »

Nursie wrote: post #221
crististm wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's go from "hypothesis" are not being generated by magic. I'm asking: how can I generate hypothesis? Are you in possession of a scientific method for generating hypothesis? Can you share it? Scientific method can do so much but I guess you have made up your mind already.

And I'm asking you why that's important? Hypothesis is not knowledge until tested.

Without hypothesis you don't have scientific method on a particular subject. This is the weakness I was talking about.

Since you can't use scientific method to bootstrap itself - as far as anyone can tell - this is enough to question scientific method's ability to resolve _all_ issues and declare any result on things not applicable to it.

Is this important? You tell me. You may find it useful not to apply unsuitable methods to all situations.

Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

#226

Post by donutz »

scardine wrote: post #188
vintermann wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine that there's a meteor heading towards earth. All evidence suggests that it will hit in three days, and wipe out all multicellular life - it's a big one. What do you do? How do you live your life your last three days? One school of thought says, disregard the evidence. Assert, against it all, that the meteor is going to miss. Or if that's hard, decide to trust someone who asserts it (this is usually easier). T…

Existence IS meaningless, this is the very beauty of it: you can give it any meaning you want. You can even give your superego a face and think there is a big guy in the sky that loves you and cares about what you do.

If you have no meaning, how can you have any to give?

Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

#227

Post by apathy »

zouhair wrote: post #181
johngalt wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone could also disagree with me because they are correct and I am in error. They may have knowledge or perspective that I lack. My first step is to try and find something they know that I don't before crafting persuasive arguments. Maximize for total knowledge not winning arguments.

What I really dislike is when I calmly convince them that I am correct to just check later and find out that I was completely wrong.

If you are interacting with the right people, a review of events will reveal that they gently led you to discover this.

I'm kind of pissed that I guy I disagreed with seems to have been banned here, for example. I was curious where he was coming from and whether my foundation was as shaky as his appeared to me. (I think it was a guy, but I'll never know)

The best teachers I've ever had simply laid out all the evidence they deemed relevant and had us make up our own minds. The conclusion was never really in doubt by the teachers, but the process of arriving at it independently was more important than the destination.

Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

#228

Post by Nursie »

alanwatts wrote: post #198
dilemma wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your worldview informed by contemporary scientific theories is faith-based. What we believe in today will eventually be proven fundamentally flawed and we'll look no better than the average church goer.

"Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle, and we’ll explain the rest.’ The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing"

That's nonsense.

Modern science is based on gathering information and forming ideas and hypotheses around it. The origins of matter and energy are an active area of investigation, not a guilty secret.

Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

#229

Post by Nursie »

crististm wrote: post #225
Nursie wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'm asking you why that's important? Hypothesis is not knowledge until tested.

Without hypothesis you don't have scientific method on a particular subject. This is the weakness I was talking about. Since you can't use scientific method to bootstrap itself - as far as anyone can tell - this is enough to question scientific method's ability to resolve _all_ issues and declare any result on things not applicable to it. Is this important? You tell me. You may find it useful not to apply unsuitable…

Why does a hypothesis need to be defined by the scientific method? I can pull an idea out of my butt (all grasshoppers are blue!), state it formally as a hypothesis and then apply scientific investigation to it. I don't see this bootstrap problem you're talking about.

Scientific method likely cannot resolve all possible categories of question, no. Empiricism is a fundamental assumption, that things are repeatable and hold true under investigation.

However this is a very different sort of assumption to the rejection of evidence based on faith that is implicit to creationism. One is our best effort to understand the world around us, the other is wilful ignorance.

Re: To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they're right

#230

Post by skhnpnb »

zouhair wrote: post #181
johngalt wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone could also disagree with me because they are correct and I am in error. They may have knowledge or perspective that I lack. My first step is to try and find something they know that I don't before crafting persuasive arguments. Maximize for total knowledge not winning arguments.

What I really dislike is when I calmly convince them that I am correct to just check later and find out that I was completely wrong.

Yeah, that's the worst.
Post reply on HN