Comments on: Descartes or the Mob http://www.thummy.com/roodee/2006/10/17/71/ My Wrong Opinions.. Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:47:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: roodee http://www.thummy.com/roodee/2006/10/17/71/comment-page-1/#comment-33 roodee Wed, 18 Oct 2006 06:58:50 +0000 http://www.thummy.com/roodee/2006/10/17/71/#comment-33 In this post I am criticizing the dangerous habit of refusing (by accident or with intent) to acknowledge those ideas that we *know* are unjustified. By unjustified I mean that there isn't sufficient reason for one to count their ideas as true knowledge (there are a few methods of moving ideas into the category of knowledge). As I side point, I think we all "know" when our particular points of view are groundless (or without sufficient evidence if you prefer) with a modest amount of reflection. My point was that, while we all do this, we have to recognize when our ideas fall into this dangerous category. We seldom do this and this results in sometimes ridiculous and dogmatic assertions without real substance. I think understanding the various categories of ideas in our heads enables us to be a bit more mellow in our presentation of information and interactions with others. So, to directly respond to your first point I am fine with people holding onto all sorts of unjustified beliefs. It is when these unjustified beliefs suddenly become true simply because one prefers a particular viewpoirt or is passionate about an issue that I have issue with. To separate that dependency from my argument is to miss the main thrust of my post. Hopefully, this clarifies it a bit. To answer you last question, I recognize that it is simply a hope, and as a result you won't hear me discussing *those* ideas with many people (if at all). Contrast this with those that do not recognize this and, hopefully, you can visualize the difference. Finally, I know that I switched from first person in the first paragraph to the third person in the last, but without question I lump myself into the "people" of the last paragraph. I reread the post so I'm not sure where the opinion that I am "very critical of people" comes from (insider information). If anything I think it is a sad state of affairs when "we" are confused about the difference between knowledge and opinion. If everything is mere opinion, why do we argue? If everything is knowledge, which version of it most accurately reflects what is true and how do we measure this? These are fundamental to meaningful dialogue. In this post I am criticizing the dangerous habit of refusing (by accident or with intent) to acknowledge those ideas that we *know* are unjustified. By unjustified I mean that there isn’t sufficient reason for one to count their ideas as true knowledge (there are a few methods of moving ideas into the category of knowledge). As I side point, I think we all “know” when our particular points of view are groundless (or without sufficient evidence if you prefer) with a modest amount of reflection. My point was that, while we all do this, we have to recognize when our ideas fall into this dangerous category. We seldom do this and this results in sometimes ridiculous and dogmatic assertions without real substance. I think understanding the various categories of ideas in our heads enables us to be a bit more mellow in our presentation of information and interactions with others. So, to directly respond to your first point I am fine with people holding onto all sorts of unjustified beliefs. It is when these unjustified beliefs suddenly become true simply because one prefers a particular viewpoirt or is passionate about an issue that I have issue with. To separate that dependency from my argument is to miss the main thrust of my post. Hopefully, this clarifies it a bit.

To answer you last question, I recognize that it is simply a hope, and as a result you won’t hear me discussing *those* ideas with many people (if at all). Contrast this with those that do not recognize this and, hopefully, you can visualize the difference.

Finally, I know that I switched from first person in the first paragraph to the third person in the last, but without question I lump myself into the “people” of the last paragraph. I reread the post so I’m not sure where the opinion that I am “very critical of people” comes from (insider information). If anything I think it is a sad state of affairs when “we” are confused about the difference between knowledge and opinion. If everything is mere opinion, why do we argue? If everything is knowledge, which version of it most accurately reflects what is true and how do we measure this? These are fundamental to meaningful dialogue.

]]> By: Anathemapth http://www.thummy.com/roodee/2006/10/17/71/comment-page-1/#comment-32 Anathemapth Wed, 18 Oct 2006 06:05:54 +0000 http://www.thummy.com/roodee/2006/10/17/71/#comment-32 I find that you are very critical of peoples reasoning, yet at times you tend to lapse into the very thing you are critical of. In this post, you are critical of people who are not willing to give up something they believe, yet you make the following statement: I can also admit that there are ideas that are as yet unjustified but that I hope will be at some point in the future. What are your criteria for "holding on to hope" that is different from the average person? I find that you are very critical of peoples reasoning, yet at times you tend to lapse into the very thing you are critical of. In this post, you are critical of people who are not willing to give up something they believe, yet you make the following statement: I can also admit that there are ideas that are as yet unjustified but that I hope will be at some point in the future.
What are your criteria for “holding on to hope” that is different from the average person?

]]>