Socrates on the blessing of being refuted • Hacker News Board

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#21

Post by the-dude » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:44 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…

Just for the record : I don't deny that COVID is a threat, and still I am not vaccinated and probably won't be.

And it is not because I have complications, I just don't feel like it.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#22

Post by steelstraw » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:50 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…

I reject that hypothesis. Open dialogue is not what's harmful and those who seek to silence or censor have never ended up on the right side of history. The only thing that works over the course of time is fighting bad information with better information.

Besides, no one could do as much damage as the official sources have done to themselves throughout the Covid pandemic. People are just forgetting the mountain of misinformation they spread. Starting with "masks don't work" and "closing travel is racist" and "the possibility of a lab leak is a crazy conspiracy theory". Big tech actually banned people for that and yet still think they should be the gatekeepers? Where is the humility? That's an environment not unlike that of Gallio. Which the church and priests who assert themselves as the source of truth while expelling the heretics.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#23

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:57 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…

[deleted]

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#24

Post by tenebrisalietum » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 6:00 PM UTC

NikolaNovak wrote: post #16

goodpoint wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

Proposed definition of "immoral debates":

An immoral debate depends on the definition of a corrupt debate. A corrupt debate is where:

1) debaters willfully produce responses that contain bad arguments or logical fallacies

2) debaters willfully conduct arguments toward an audience without knowledge of logical fallacies and/or without knowledge of critical thinking

3) debaters willfully conduct arguments in a venue or theater where non-logical aspects of communication could manipulate the behavior of others, and leverage those aspects in the delivery of their arguments.

A corrupt debate is an immoral debate if performed where the debate is part of a process affecting a large number of people who consider themselves a society, because:

1) while those debating look like they are arguing and analyzing an issue, and trying to come to a logically correct conclusion, they are really manipulating an audience to effect a desired outcome,

2) if debate is the foundation of determining the direction of a society, corrupt debate skews it towards the will of specific individuals rather than objective truth.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#25

Post by vngzs » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 6:09 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…

While I agree that the content of one's apology is largely irrelevant here (actions speak louder than words), the video makes two substantive claims about changes when controversial opinions about about covid-19 are presented:

1. A disclaimer at the beginning of the video will instruct people to consult their physician and provide a warning that the views expressed are "against the current consensus of experts."

2. When a controversial expert is interviewed, the following videos will feature experts who hold the mainstream viewpoint, serving to counterbalance the claims of a small minority.

Time will tell if this happens, but I find the above points far more meaningful than any apology.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#26

Post by jorgesborges » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 6:13 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…

I think when you call certain people conspiracists it’s unproductive. Who are you referring to? Sure Alex Jones is a nutty conspiracy theorist. But highly credentialed physicians and academics who simply have opinions that deviate from the established consensus? No, that’s unfair.

Did you watch the posted ten minute video? Have you watched any of his podcasts in full? He explains why he has those guests on and concedes with some gratitude the idea that he ought to have more guests on that can communicate the opposing views, especially soon after a controversial guest.

The alleged harm he’s perpetrating in having conversations is way less dangerous than a full-steam-ahead into uncritical, contrived, and corrupt thought control from established institutions and governments.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#27

Post by watwut » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 6:18 PM UTC

steelstraw wrote: post #22

teachrdan wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I reject that hypothesis. Open dialogue is not what's harmful and those who seek to silence or censor have never ended up on the right side of history. The only thing that works over the course of time is fighting bad information with better information. Besides, no one could do as much damage as the official sources have done to themselves throughout the Covid pandemic. People are just forgetting the mountain of mis…

"Open dialog" and "intentionally lying or misleading for political purposes" are in direct opposition. The latter kills former.

I am not saying censorship is answer necessary, but I am saying we should stop pretending the discussion has anything to do with open dialog or "adding information".

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#28

Post by aeternum » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 6:20 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…

> Isn't the point that he should stop providing a platform to people who deny

No, people should listen and decide for themselves. By denying a platform, you often feed conspiracy theories and fringe ideas. This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it.

Instead focus the discussion on how we experimentally determine which idea is more true. Ask people and consider yourself what it would take to disprove some of the things you believe to be true.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#29

Post by redler » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 6:22 PM UTC

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #24

NikolaNovak wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

Proposed definition of "immoral debates": An immoral debate depends on the definition of a corrupt debate. A corrupt debate is where: 1) debaters willfully produce responses that contain bad arguments or logical fallacies 2) debaters willfully conduct arguments toward an audience without knowledge of logical fallacies and/or without knowledge of critical thinking 3) debaters willfully conduct arguments in a venue or…

Sounds like what the US Senate has become, unfortunately.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#30

Post by chernevik » Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 6:28 PM UTC

aeternum wrote: post #28

teachrdan wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Isn't the point that he should stop providing a platform to people who deny No, people should listen and decide for themselves. By denying a platform, you often feed conspiracy theories and fringe ideas. This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it. Instead focus the discussion on how we experimentally determine which idea is more true. Ask people and consider yourself w…

Good point.

I think you may have meant to put "This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it" in quotes -- to show that it might be the attitude of a conspiracy theorist towards efforts to hide the conspiracy.