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

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#61

Post by aeternum »

chernevik wrote: post #30
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…

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.

Yes exactly, too late to edit but thanks for the clarification.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#62

Post by jhoechtl »

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…

> The media drives a lot of this with the format of their shows/political debates. I'm sure these sound bytes are better for ratings, but they are poor for getting to the bottom of a political platform and how that's really best for the general population.

I only developed a more informed sense to follow the political sphere like five years ago or so. This is so true, the media and their need for quotes makes so many debates into a farce. Politicians seem like being in front of a judge instead of a truth-seeking interviewer. Not that politicians are overly known for truth-seeking but there is a certain line between for a reporter being investigative and sensational.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#63

Post by friedman23 »

goodpoint wrote: post #57
friedman23 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It sounds like you are projecting.

How so? I don't have a problem with my beliefs being questioned or discussed.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#64

Post by sol_invictus »

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…

The mindset you describe is a mindset of exploration, adventure and tinkering. Occasionally it ends in catastrophe, but historically has been the driver of some of the greatest inventions. But such is the nature of nature; gains generally don’t come free.

Ergo, your obedient unquestioning good citizen mentality is far less progressive & beneficial than you think it is.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#65

Post by marginalia_nu »

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…

This is not all that different from the Athens Socrates operated in. A significant portion of Plato's work portrays Socrates interrogating various forms of sophists, politicians, generals; the "talking heads" of his time.

Socrates was a notorious weirdo, a bit like the Richard Stallman of Athens.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#66

Post by more_corn »

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…

It is still possible to seek truth even if those arguing against you are seeking only political power. Some of my most satisfying conversations have been with Machiavellian powermongers. They have compelling arguments and finely honed tactics of persuasion. Our arguments come away in pieces and new ideas are constructed out of the wreckage. It is by disagreeing with someone that we get to explore the ideas we would never consider on our own. Some of my most novel ideas have come about by being refuted by others.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#67

Post by StanislavPetrov »

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…

The most harmful conspiracies have always been the ones invented and circulated by the government and the corporate media outlets clutching their pearls about, "misinformation". Bay of Tonkin, babies ripped out of incubators, WMD in Iraq, Saran gas attacks by Syria, the president is a Russian spy. I don't mean to sound like a dick here, but I think it's a big of a red herring to focus on the supposedly harmful conspiracies being peddled by independent voices when the loudest and most powerful voices constantly peddle far more harmful conspiracies.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#68

Post by tenebrisalietum »

vraks wrote: post #34
tenebrisalietum wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So basically an "immoral debate" would be one that's propaganda in disguise? But why would it be inherently immoral to knowingly propagandize a false idea? What if believing a particular false idea leads to behavior that's safer in large scale? For example, you convince everyone that, I don't know, gasoline makes you impotent. Your rhetoric is so good that everyone is convinced, even in the absence of evidence, and p…

It is.

Following your example, you've reduced pollution, but now millions of people who work in the gasoline supply chain have lost jobs. These people get addicted to drugs, increase crime, and now you can't leave your house, but you do have clean air.

A logical debate without propaganda might have taken that into account.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#69

Post by NikolaNovak »

goodpoint wrote: post #55
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…

> what is a morally unacceptable debate? I'm surprised that people here do not understand this point. Here some by-the-book examples that are used in ethics 101: "what is the best way to kill grandma?" "what is a reasonable price to buy a slave?" If you find murder or slavery immoral you are simply unable to debate on this questions because they imply acceptance of the premise. You can, of course, express your disagr…

I've taken Philosophy 101 and Ethics 101 (admittedly not much further), and I've never found an inkling that discussion/debate itself is immoral; I don't even know how you'd consider an idea, to label it as moral or immoral, without, you know, considering and debating it (internally or externally).

I can debate the best way to kill grandma; I will even find it intellectually stimulating; heck, I just spent a few minutes now that you brought it up pondering that (it's the whole "don't think of pink Elephant" schtick:); without in any way implying acceptance of the premise, condoning the action, or considering actually doing it. Does your brain work different? Can you disentangle a concept and idea from action and emotion? I don't feel you're making your point persuasively, or the choice of phrasing may be ambiguous.

Re: Socrates on the blessing of being refuted

#70

Post by MockObject »

feoren wrote: post #37
jorgesborges wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conced…

> 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…

You just wrote that debunking a crazy idea with facts is "false equivalency", and that it promotes crazy ideas.
Post reply on HN