You're viewing a single thread.
Yes.
A reasonable position and uncritical acceptance of a narrative are indistinguishable without the reasoning behind it. And I sincerely wish I could give others the benefit of the doubt that they reasoned their way to their beliefs, and I used to. But that assumption has been repeatedly violated that I'd be stupid to maintain it.
But what if my perspective differs?
Argumentation cannot account for that.
Argumentation requires a shared perspective and shared axioms.
If a worldview is devoid of reason and no argument will dissuade the person, all useful dialog is impossible.
It isn't a worldview devoid of reason. It's perfectly good reason based upon a set of assumptions that differ from yours.
Reason is the house. The assumptions is the ground upon which the house is built.
Some ground is rock, some swamp, some flat, sloped... all require different house designs. Dig?
There is still a foundation that you should be able to explain. Do you want to just explain what happened instead of talking in hypotheticals? What is your hot take?
Correct me if I’m wrong, OP, but it sounds like you’re talking about retreating to the axioms of the particular belief system, as in there is a point where reason breaks down because you get to things that you (the person whose expressing their opinion) have accepted that’s different than me.
To me this is a bit of a Motte and Bailey fallacy as your question was whether or not you have a good argument and then someone replied to that and then moved to the set of assumptions which has nothing to do with argument.
For me personally, the other person has to demonstrate some level of critical reasoning for me to respect their opinions, even if their assumptions are different than mine. Beliefs that are entered into using reasoning are more useful than ones without because they can be changed which is what discourse is all about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
Today I learned! :)
Really? A worldview requiring accepting ideas without verification and contrary to logic isn't devoid of reason? In what planet?
That's technically true, but the question then becomes, why are our assumptions different?
If it's based on different beliefs of what reality is (ground work), it would be normal to fight for truth.
If it's based on our affinity for the result of the argumentation (the house), it would also be normal to fight for our own benefit and those like us.
So realistically i don't see any reason as to why we should respect each other's opinions... all would incentives us to fight for the correct assumptions.
This in itself doesn't mean we should stop respecting people though!
If your perspective differs, then to the extent that it's not extremely outrageous, all the better!
Argumentation doesn't require a shared perspective and shared axioms (except concerning the conduct of arguing). Fundamentally, it requires that we be willing to be taken on the perspective of others and lead them to where we are, or allow ourselves to be led to where they are. This isn't common on online discussions because of the incentives of online "debates", which isn't to be persuaded or to spend time typing out thoughtful responses with which someone can bite and chew on to serve up something equally worthwhile.
In other words, it's not that people disagree that's the problem. It's how we disagree that leads to the cesspool that internet discussions often devolve into. If you want to argue and try to understand another person, then there's no reason that can't happen.
But language cannot convey perspective. It can only refer to it. Language only works when perspective is shared.
If perspective is not shared then, tho we use the same words, the meaning we assign to them differs. We may appear to be communicating but we really aren't quite, there's something broken there, and that brokenness generally gets translated as "this guy is just stupid".
This is a problem with language and the internet.
I know exactly what you mean!
But there's a really easy way to solve that problem: ask for clarification and then check to make sure your understanding of the concept matches theirs.
For example, when you say "We may appear to be communicating but we really aren’t quite", the meaning of the word ' 'communicating' slides between different meanings. From my understanding, in the first case you mean a shared understanding of the terms under discussion, and in the second case you mean talking past each other, where people don't really address the substance of the discussion.
Right? And you're saying this is a problem of language and the internet?
If so, then I agree that it's a problem of language, and one that language can just as easily solve. I don't think it's a problem of the internet, though, but the social dynamics of internet certainly don't help.
Some opinions cannot be explained. For example "chocolate is better than vanilla".
There are a lot of those. It's the earth upon which all argumentation stands.
So at some point the question arises, "do I respect the individual?"
But for us, on the internet, the individual doesn't really exist?
"I enjoy chocolate more" and "I associate chocolate with positive memories" are both explanations that are still personal experience that isn't necessarily shared experiences but can be understood through communication.
Aye, those are preferences and largely entirely subjective (because I prefer vanilla over chocolate).
So at some point the question arises, “do I respect the individual?”
This question is always there.
You can have different perspectives on observable facts. But if your perspective runs counter to observable facts then you're simply wrong.