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

Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

antigonejournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#41

Post by abecedarius »

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…

Funny thing: I'd classify Plato's dialogs as immoral debates by this definition. (Admittedly that's debatable. You could say they're not debates at all, for instance.)

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#42

Post by steelstraw »

Kranar wrote: post #36
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…

He's been saying that for years though, from the time he perpetuated 9/11 being an inside job, to arguing that the moon landing was a hoax, to his current position on COVID. What exact mindset inspired by Joe Rogan would you advocate for people? To believe in and promote fringe opinions for the sake of being contrarian, and then after some degree of damage has been done you go ahead apologize for it, say you're going…

It doesn't sound like you're very familiar with the show given that Twitter-like characterization. At least watch that 10 minute video. The mindset in question is represented there.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#43

Post by my_usernam3 »

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…

> most people cling to conspiracy theories because they're more convenient to them

The trend I've noticed is the theories or beliefs are being attached to one's own identity. Once engrained, it's hard to ever openly view other opposing beliefs.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#44

Post by CharlesW »

steelstraw wrote: post #42
Kranar wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's been saying that for years though, from the time he perpetuated 9/11 being an inside job, to arguing that the moon landing was a hoax, to his current position on COVID. What exact mindset inspired by Joe Rogan would you advocate for people? To believe in and promote fringe opinions for the sake of being contrarian, and then after some degree of damage has been done you go ahead apologize for it, say you're going…

It doesn't sound like you're very familiar with the show given that Twitter-like characterization. At least watch that 10 minute video. The mindset in question is represented there.

The parent's response suggests that he's watched the show a lot, and probably more than you have. The Instagram video was vetted (and possibly written) by Spotify's legal team, and is not representative.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#45

Post by steelstraw »

arrosenberg wrote: post #31
steelstraw wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

One doesn't have to be pro-government to recognize that Joe Rogan is acting in extremely bad faith. He has a lucrative financial agreement that incentivizes him to drive viewership - he's not promoting open dialogue, he's promoting topics and guests that will attract polemics to drive ratings.

You're describing the corporate media. Rogan is just doing what he's been doing for thousands of hours: Having conversations with a wide variety of people across the spectrum. Fundamentally they're trying to control and narrow who he has a conversation with.

When he had Bernie Sanders on (who he supported), Bernie was pressured to reject Rogan's support. Guilt by association. That's how tribal all of this is.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#46

Post by steelstraw »

teachrdan wrote: post #32
aeternum wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Ask people and consider yourself what it would take to disprove some of the things you believe to be true. Sure. If the past 7 years had been the coldest on record, I'd be a lot more skeptical of the consensus theory of climate change. Instead, they were the hottest on record.[0] And yet Joe Rogan lets Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist (!), go one his show and claim that the theory of climate change is a fra…

If you watch that episode, Joe pushes back a bunch of times and even pulls up Google for a fact check. It's just that Joe is polite with his guests and that seems to confuse people who are used to Twitter style dunking. Is that what people are looking for? Should he kick off his guests and yell at them? Or put them on guide rails? I don't think so. He has friendly conversations and disagrees in a polite way.

Also Jordan is being mischaracterized somewhat. You have to watch the whole explanation and ignore repackaged soundbites. He was (inartfully and perhaps incorrectly) challenging the accuracy of predictive models, which is a fair thing to do. It's not the end of the world. He can challenge it and others can present the counter argument.

Plus it's important to recognize that he's on the side of the environment. He argues (and I agree with him) that the best way to improve the environment is to bring people out of poverty, which enables people to think and strategize over longer time frames, not being so focused on their next meal or paying the bills. I believe he is correct about this larger point.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#47

Post by beebmam »

dfxm12 wrote: post #35

I think the article is operating under the false assumption that most political discourse is meant to be a Socratic conversation. It's really not. Look at a political debate, or a talking heads show on cable news. There is no truth that is sought out, no hypotheses to accept, no exploration of if a conclusion follows the premises logically. All there is, is persuasive sound bytes, with no deference paid to the truth…

Public debate is performance for the audiences. Private debate can absolutely be like Socratic dialogue

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#48

Post by Kranar »

jorgesborges wrote: post #40
feoren wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But highly credentialed physicians and academics who simply have opinions that deviate from the established consensus? This is called the Halo effect: someone who is good in one way is surely good in all ways. If Terence Tao posted on his blog tomorrow that he has video proof that Hillary Clinton is a secret lizard person, I would certainly be shocked, and I might even read what he has to say, but I would still imm…

Are you saying that lizard theory is fairly analogous to physicians questioning the efficacy of health protocols during an unprecedented global pandemic?

Arguing that Clinton is a lizard is not only analogous to claiming that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine does not work and is actually harmful, it's leaps and bounds worse. At least the lizard position can be viewed as a kind of satire or metaphorically. The claims of Dr. Robert Malone (who was the guest on JRE) about the mRNA vaccines are not a form of questioning or scientific skepticism, his position is categorical.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#49

Post by arrosenberg »

steelstraw wrote: post #45
arrosenberg wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One doesn't have to be pro-government to recognize that Joe Rogan is acting in extremely bad faith. He has a lucrative financial agreement that incentivizes him to drive viewership - he's not promoting open dialogue, he's promoting topics and guests that will attract polemics to drive ratings.

You're describing the corporate media. Rogan is just doing what he's been doing for thousands of hours: Having conversations with a wide variety of people across the spectrum. Fundamentally they're trying to control and narrow who he has a conversation with. When he had Bernie Sanders on (who he supported), Bernie was pressured to reject Rogan's support. Guilt by association. That's how tribal all of this is.

The corporate media definitely does it, and it didn't come as any surprise to me that Joe Rogan began fomenting controversy far more often after the $100M move to Spotify. Can't have an "open dialogue" with that much money in the balance.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#50

Post by [deleted] »

the-dude wrote: post #21
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…

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN