Socrates on the blessing of being refuted
antigonejournal.com
Socrates on the blessing of being refuted
1–10 of 71 posts
Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted
#2[deleted]
Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted
#3if 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..
Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted
#4if 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..
You 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.
Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted
#5if 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..
[deleted]
Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted
#6if 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..
Here, 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 ;)
Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted
#7if 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..
> 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.
Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted
#8if 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..
Are 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.)
Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted
#9if 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..
You 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.
What would you consider a morally unacceptable debate? Or is that question itself morally unacceptable to engage with?
Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted
#10if 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..
> 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.
Which is why moral relativism is so degenerate.