Skip to main content

DEBATE AND CONFLICT

How can I understand my opponent when we have different opinions? This is an interesting question, partly because we all have differences of opinion, and surely we see them every day in politics. To help you understand, we will give you the principal techniques.


A. It’s all in the axioms. Many disagreements stem from a difference in what both of you believe to be true (or correct) when you create your viewpoints. Change the axioms and you will wind up with different conclusions. This assumes other conditions, such as your logic, remain the same.

B. Misconceptions or misunderstandings. What this means is that your opposite has a misunderstanding or misconception of something that causes conflicts in your understanding. These take some time to uncover. It is easier to detect for math problems. Often misconceptions cannot be simply revealed as they are intertwined with the belief system. They have to be self-discovered. I recommend you drop the conflict or debate.

C. Logical fallacies. Sometimes, particularly during a debate your opposite will use logic incorrectly thereby arriving at some false conclusion. Detecting these can be difficult, partly because you have to know them, and know what to look for in detecting them.

D. Differing beliefs. You both believe something different is true and you base your understanding upon that. It could be you are both wrong, but still be on the alert for differing beliefs. Many religious arguments have this flavor. Differences based on differing, even small beliefs are difficult, if not impossible, to repair. Many times we see these as between sects of a given faith. A more modern type involves accepting something as misinformation/disinformation while you see it as fact. Finally, and remarkably, this also happens in new science. Older scientists can be reluctant to see their preferred theory replaced by a new one.

These are a few ways to reconcile whether you are correct and why your opponent is wrong. Of course, you may be the one making one of these errors.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Please Comment.

Popular posts from this blog

Behavioral Science and Problem-Solving

I.                                       I.                 Introduction.                Concerning our general behavior, it’s high about time we all had some understanding of how we operate on ourselves, and it is just as important how we are operated on by others. This is the wheelhouse of behavioral sciences. It is a vast subject. It touches our lives constantly. It’s influence is pervasive and can be so subtle we never notice it. Behavioral sciences profoundly affect our ability and success at problem-solving, from the elementary level to highly complex wicked problems. This is discussed in Section IV. We begin with the basics of behavioral sciences, Section II, and then through the lens of multiple categories and examples, Section III. II.     ...
Post a Comment
Read more

THE ORIGINS OF IMPOSSIBLE PROBLEMS

The Origins of Impossible Problems Introduction. Impossible problems have always been a part of the landscape of human thought. They arise from various sources, often rooted in cognitive, logical, or structural limitations. Some problems are truly unsolvable due to fundamental constraints, while others only appear impossible because of human limitations in understanding, reasoning, or approach. In many situations, we make difficult problems impossible because of our limitations, psychological and otherwise. It is a curious thought problem to consider what sort of limitations AI will reveal when we give it truly difficult problems to solve. We must hope that we humans have not transferred our complete reliance and dependence to machine-learning tools beforehand. Below are key sources of seemingly impossible problems, along with examples and a few references to philosophical and scientific thought. Impossible Problems . To explore impossible problems, we must consider our systems fo...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Lemming Instinct

  In certain vital domains, a pervasive mediocrity among practitioners can stifle genuine advancement. When the intellectual output of a field is predominantly average, it inevitably produces research of corresponding quality. Nevertheless, some of these ideas, by sheer chance or perhaps through effective dissemination, will inevitably gain traction. A significant number of scholars and researchers will gravitate towards these trends, contributing to and propagating further work along these established lines. Such a trajectory allows an initially flawed concept to ascend to the status of mainstream orthodoxy. However, over an extended period, these prevailing ideas invariably fail to withstand rigorous scrutiny; they are ultimately and conclusively disproven. The disheartening pattern then reveals itself: rather than genuine progress, an equally unvalidated or incorrect idea often supplants the discredited one, swiftly establishing its own dominance. This cycle perpetuates, ensurin...
Post a Comment
Read more