Main Page Contact Register Log In

The point about leaning was that one doesn't need to fall into the default distribution to enter discussion. I think we would rather hear all sides rather than the sides we are already familiar with.

Having to do extensive research to continnue discussion might work as a discussion staller (semantic stop signs are kinda bad in that they lessen cognitive activity, "read up" might work similarly as a activity inhibitor). But I guess that isn't an error state but an extra motivation to do the research. I guess there is more latitude in using arguments that use sophisticated techniques which might not be accessible first hand to every reader. How the interaction between those that know technical voodoo and those that do not might be somewhat tricky. I guess that comes also with an norm that if you read a post and do not understand the argument, that is okay and it is better to aknowledge lack of understanding than try to forcibly make it make sense in a violent and in accurate manner.

I don't know whether it is proper to call it arguing but two rationalist sharing their knowledge to for example come to an agreement as in the agreement theorem seems a lot like sharing reasons to believe some statements. It also might not be proof as such when it comes to politics as they can genuinely contain value talk where preferences as such can't be right or wrong but people being aware how well what options fill which preferences might be important to forming opinions. Is this still the general goal activity or is there some more adept positive definition on what we are trying to do here?

There is also tension between tell culture of telling your opinion despite being rude and asking questions instead of arguing. It is unfortunate that the word argue means a fight like "who wins" social situation and also carefully laid out pro and com analysis. While I acknowledge that asking questions is better when possible I am not so sure that every situation of disagreement could be turned into a question. Wouldn't it also be disgenuine to ask for clarification when you are confident that you have a good picutre of the stance of the other person?

If a person constantly changes their position there are far more serious cognitive concerns to address. It doesn't mean disengament, for getting the other person to make a wrong statement would be improvement over being too incoherent to even be wrong. But indeed that doesn't involve arguing.