Can we extend the "dialogue" to include violence? -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 11:52 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Science Denial: A rational activity built on incoherence and conspiracy theories | HotWhopper
When you say "these folks", I'm guessing you mean Worrall and the commenters, not Sou, Lewandowsky, et al. Correct? As for the 3 criteria, I completely reject your *implied* inference in (1). A commitment to logic does not imply a commitment to the Law of Non-contradiction. There are plenty of logics that don't obey that axiom. I've tried a number of times to introduce paraconsistent logic and inconsistency tolerance techniques (which are ubiquitous in modern IT systems). And while I agree, in principle, with your (3), my recent posts poking at the false dichotomy between ad hominem and character assessment (or the previous ones on "credibility") aren't reflected in it. For me, personally, I *must* allow contempt-speech and disrespectful dialogue because the people I care most about dialoguing with are VERY sensitive people, triggered at the smallest mis-spoken phrase or line of argument. So, when I mis-speak, they react ... sometimes even with violence. If I considered that a condition to rule them out for any (future) productive dialogue, I'd be a very lonely person. 8^D In summary, I find only (2) is necessary for productive dialogue ... and even there I can argue about the conceptions of "fact" and "desire". Such rule-based ethics will fail you in an open universe. >8^D But it's a great post. Thanks! I'll probably read that main paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6 On 11/25/20 10:46 AM, [email protected] wrote: > I actually read most of this before I am passing it on to you, a new > record for me. It relates to Wing Nuts. > https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/09/climate-science-denial-rational.ht > ml > <https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/09/climate-science-denial-rational.h > tml> > > I found it interesting because it relates to an attempt to state the > minimum conditions for a productive dialogue between people who disagree. > > So these folks meet the first two. > > 1. A commitment to logic. Otherwise inconsistencies don’t hurt, right? > 2. A commitment to the possibility of facts and a desire to find them. > > They fail on the third criterion: > > 3. A commitment to respectful dialogue, avoidance of contempt-speech, and an > honest attempt to Steelman (/sensu Ropellae) /the other guy’s argument. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
