Socrates on the blessing of being refuted • Hacker News Board

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#11

Post by Razengan » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:12 PM UTC

goodpoint wrote: post #4

totetsu wrote: post #3

if 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.

Oh man…

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#12

Post by agumonkey » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:14 PM UTC

tremon wrote: post #6

totetsu wrote: post #3

if 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…

I 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.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#13

Post by NikolaNovak » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:21 PM UTC

newbamboo wrote: post #10

dvt wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Elaborate, please?

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#14

Post by abecedarius » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:24 PM UTC

goodpoint wrote: post #4

totetsu wrote: post #3

if 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.

"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.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#15

Post by rgrieselhuber » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:24 PM UTC

zalo wrote: post #8

totetsu wrote: post #3

if 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.)

I have yet to hear a FE believer explain their position without them raising their voice.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#16

Post by NikolaNovak » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:24 PM UTC

goodpoint wrote: post #4

totetsu wrote: post #3

if 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.

Hmm, 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 :)

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#17

Post by friedman23 » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:31 PM UTC

goodpoint wrote: post #4

totetsu wrote: post #3

if 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.

It sounds like you hold a lot of questionable moral beliefs that you refuse to take a hard look at.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#18

Post by steelstraw » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:32 PM UTC

Joe 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/

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.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#19

Post by teachrdan » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:39 PM UTC

steelstraw wrote: post #18

Joe 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/ 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 t…

Honest 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.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#20

Post by rsfayez » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:41 PM UTC

teachrdan wrote: post #19

steelstraw wrote: post #18

Joe 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/ 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 t…

Honest 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…

> "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