IRC log started Fri May 10 22:53 Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that channel logs are copyrighted by the channel owners: Tom Wright and myself. Copying or reproduction of the logs in any form is forbidden without prior written permission of the channel owners. The topic for tonight's discussion is "How to Pick your Fights: Gauging Honesty in Intellectual Discussions." It will be moderated by Tym Parsons. I'll now turn the channel over to Tym. Go, Tym. :) Many students of Objectivism think that all they need to do is rehearse a single one-size-fits-all argument to use on intellectual opponents. It's almost as if they think they can utter the words "A is A" like some mantra, and their opponent's head will automatically implode! On the other hand, to doggedly pursue discussion with the willfully irrational is moral tolerationism. What do we need to know about the context of our listeners in order to make a distinction? The purpose of tonight's discussion is to answer that question. OK, I'm gonna go thru the first questions rather quickly (try)... What is intellectual honesty? Examples? (First off) Knowing the boundaries of your knowledge and not presuming to know what you don't really know? Intellectual honetsy consists of realizing that the unreal is unreal. Unicorns are unreal, so anyone stating they ahve actually scene a unicorn could be dishonest, unless he can provide proof. That's part, what elsSube ack...sorry. Adhering to one's principles. Connection to reality...OK... Accepting what you know to be true. Seeking the truth apart from any feelings. Being interested in discovering the truth rather than to win an argument at all costs. Glenn: Only if those principles are grounded in existence. What is an intellectually dishonest idea? Examples? TomM: Of course! Tym: There's no free will. Tym: an intellectually dishonets idea is one that flies in the face of reality. Dishonest: egalitarianism for example. TomM:relate that to a person's context. Tym: Anyone who is alive at all, must observe that existence exists...if he tries to convince you otherwise, he is being intellectually dishonest, since he *is* taking gocniscence of you while denying it at the same time. cogniscence. Tym: An idea that contradicts a person's knowledge is dishonest if it's easy to be aware of the contradiction. TomM: very good. He has to be aware of the AXIOMS. In other words, he is denying his own context. Is it possible to honestly hold an intellectually dishonest idea, and if so, why? Tym: Can ideas *by themselves* be dishonest? Or is only dishonest the person? Question is, you can only be honest to the best of your knowledge, within its context. He can't deny axioms, of course, but he's not necessarily dishonest for professing to a false belief, because he failed to recognize it as false. yes. ignorance Tym: I don't think that's ever really possible. Question = fat fact It's possible to have an idea based on false or incomplete knowledge. Omni: good question. Anyone know? there are no ideas by themselves Inherently dishonest idea means: one that can't be entertained seriously if one has all the relevant facts. Tym: An intellectually dishonest idea is one that so obviously flies in the face of existence, that **no one** could *mistakenly* hold that premise. ClayH: That's what I thought. TomM: in a given context, right? Which is? Tym: The ultimate context is existence. Tym: Like "the earth is flat" Context is waht you know about existence. what Tom: ..from the context of the person perceiving it. Intellectually dishonest implies willful evasion or discounting or reality. Tym: If you are talking about the axioms, then no doubt is possible...for something like "The earth is flat" a complex assessement of the facts is required, so it could mistakenly be held honestly. of not or. Why call it an "inherently dishonest idea" instead of just a "dishonest idea"? What does the word "inherently" add? Tom: I'm talking about the total context of their knowledge, not just the axioms. Subetai: it adds the fact that man's sense are accurate. TomM: Explain that. Subetai: it just means, as I said, if one were in full possession...facts, etc. "The earth is flat" is neither honest nor dishonest. A person may or may not have all the data to validate that idea, thus can be honest or not. I mean, he can be dishonest if he sees the fact but refuses to accept it. (?) Tym: that's what "dishonest idea' means. Subetai: if someone were to say, "I don't *really* see you, since vision is based on faulty sensory organs." Omni: yup! He is being evasive. Subetai: I guess the phrase was meant to bring out the perspective of the viewer more, not just the idea. How about: "the earth is flat" can be a mistakenly or dishonestly held idea... Subetai: Since obviously he *does* see you, if he is replying to you (and has sight). TomM: If he's being evasive, he's dishonest. If he's read enough philosophical nonsense to fool him into that notion without much thinking, he's not dishonest. Subetai: I disagree. With what and why. But "Venus is full of angels" is inherently dishonest (i.e. arbitrary). Subetai: No one falls for that tripe without trying to get away with something (at it's root). Subetai: for one thing, he must be *reading* the tripe, sod he is counting on his senses while denying them at the same time... that contradiction is what makes it inherently dishonest. Was Bertrand Russell dishonest when he said that a philosopher with enough training could doubt that he is sitting on a chair? You're making the case that if something is patently absurd, then to claim that it's true is "inherently dishonest". I say that it's just "dishonest". You're using the word "inherently" to guess at his context and understanding. Omnigod: yes. Subetai: Trust your senses, and re-read what I just wrote ;) Tom: He might not make that association as clearly as you do. That he's using his senses to deny them. Subetai: WHICH leads into my next question.. Tom: I read it carefully the first time. There's nothing more I can extract from it. But never mind. Subetai: Nonetheless, it is inherently contradictory. The senses issue is delicate. Is the stick in the water really bent? How DO we figure out what their context is? ...for Subetai If something is contradictory, that's what it is. "Inherently" doesn't add anything there either. Omnigod, what stick? In judging a person's intellectual honesty, we need to know the scope of their intellectual knowledge as evidenced by: age, occupation, method _or_ content of their arguments Tym: By asking some leading questions. Tym: If he is respondidng to you, then he is being patently dishonest to claim that neither he, nor you, really exist. Tym also asking for definitions that he is using ClayH: A stick half submerged in water seems to bend when you see it. Is it dishonest to think that it really does? Subetai: "inherently" means contradicts the self-evident. Omnigod, that would certainly depend upon the context of one's knowledge ClayH: That's what I mean about the senses. It's more than just perception. ClayH: Yes, definitely. What do you mean the senses are more than just perception? Omni: so you don't blame a person if he doesn't know better about the stick? Tym. No, I don't think a savage is dishonest if he doesn't know that water makes us think that objects are bent. Omnigod: That's what the big mushy thing behind your eyes is for. What about people in our society? What do we look for typically? water doesn't make us think the stick is bent, it's the rate at which the light waves or particles or whatever travel through the water Tym: There are a lot of things you can do to determine his context. Getting him to define his terms is one thing. The quickest way is to ask direct, leading questions that relate to his metaphysics and epistemology. MikeH: That mushy thing can make mistakes. Omnigod: Context includes *all* the evidence available via the senses...if you put your hand in the water, it doesn't feel bent...therefore you have to conclude it is some sort of light phenomina type of event. Subetai: so his METHOD or CONTENT is important to know? Tym: Yes. ClayH: Our eyes *see* the stick bent. Our brain decides it's an optical illuson. TomM: Agree. Omnigod: Exactly. That's why we need to learn a method which, when applied correctly, produces ideas which correspond to reality. Without a _method_, you don't get ideas at all. Tym: method is more important, content depends somewhat on how he got there What about a young person believing in Marxism? Is that evidence by itself that that person is evading? Method determines content. why - does oops Tym: (Why just a *young* person?) Tym: in this day and age, yes, since Marxism claims that production is *not* the result of thinking, but muscles only. I'd say if their content were sound but their method weren't, they're still one foot in reality. Tym: It depends on his understanding of Marxism. If he really understands it and supports it, he's probably evading somewhere. But a lot of people don't really know what it is - just have some vague, happy idea about it. Again, I'd determine the context .. Tom: what if they had Marxist parents? ;) of their knowledge. Tym: But falling out rather quickly. Tym: Then thew are screwed ;) Tym: yeah, one foot, but they may not have a way of consistently getting to reality Tym: Nonetheless, even therre, one ahs the *capacity* to reject it. I was raised to be a christian altruist, by the time I was in seventh grade, what I understood of collectivism made alot of sense to me within the context that I had yet to challenge paulf: if they're method is sound but their facts are screwed, they're sti Here is another difficult issue: are all religious people dishonest? Obviously not, and yet their belief is contrary to reality and all axioms... ll one foot in reality too. Clay: But notice how your pleasure/pain mechanism "argued" against that...I know, because I went through it as well. Tom, yes, I know OK, why don't we instantiate some of this fer a sec.. Omnigod: To the extent that they deny the axioms, yes, it is dishonest. For example, believing in "miracles", like turning water into wine or wounds healing at someone's touch or such. I think all adult religious people with any sort of High School education, even in our fucked up system, are dishonest qua religionists Clay: Your "natural urges" cried out to be rewarded for doing good. Tym: also true, so I guess I would ask what they think AND how they got there paulf: my view of a screwed up person is one whose philosophy is out of touch with reality in all five branches. Tom, it's interesting, I would argue with my parents for hours, trying to convince them that they should be "communists"... they were and are, soooo inconsistent.. :) Wow, that was some delay...! Clay: to be consistant would spell a painful death ;) or a painful life ;) HOW does one access, for example, a dishonest person on IRC? assess rather I'd tell a story I heard today about one altruists painful life, but I think I'll spare you all the insignificance of it Tym: if he denies his computer exists, he *definitely* being dishonest. +is Tom :) Tym, first listen to what he says, ask him questions to find out exactly what he means, if it isn't clear.. point out apparent contradictions and see how he/she deals w/ them Tym: Well, some have actually claimed that! Clay: see how his concepts are grounded 8n reality, at all. I watch for someone who uses humor to belittle serious a serious attempt of another to acquire knowledge. Glenn: yes, if he doesn't take ideas seriously, especially in this forum, he is being dishonest. Glenn: yup! Humor covers a multitude of sins among most intellectuals I have a terrible lag. Thanks everybody. also, look for ad hominem attacks baseless assertions ClayH: with no attempt to justify them seemingly deliberate context-dropping/switching Someone who isn't bothered by a contradiction in his thoughts is probably dishonest. paul, I think that's what a baseless assertion is Yeah, that's a good one. Context-switching. ClayH: yup, you're right bromide spouting isn't necessarily indicative of dishonesty, but it can be I'm missing most of the discussion. I'll sign off. Thanks again. Incessant context-switching is a sure sign of evasion. What do you do when you suspect the other person of evasion? Subetai: he's trying to by-pass an issue he is confronted with. Tom: and? Try to pin him down. Ask him to give concrete examples of what he is asserting. Subetai: it's one thing to say, "Hmm...that's interesting, I'll have to think about it." It's another to say, "That may be true for you, but it's not true for me..." Glenn: Would you talk to such a person again? Or would you break off any incidental contact whatsoever. there's this one thing that really bothers me... I don't know what it's called, but when talking about something like perception, they will cite an example of a dysfunctional perceptual mechanism to try to refute what you are saying.. Tom: If he's evading, he's obviously not saying "I'll have to think about it some more". Clay: they would have to know it's dysfunctional, right? Tym, yeah.. of course Clay: He is throwing in a false premise...he's wanting you to deny your senses because they *might* be wrong...how could you know? I'm not saying I don't know how to deal w/ those people, I'm saying that what they are doing really bugs me... Subetai: That's the point...he's not avoiding the conclusion, he just hasnd't thought about it enough to give an assent just yet. Tom: In which case, I wouldn't have any problem with talking to him again. I'm asking about people you suspect of evasion. Subetai: after a period of time I may talk to him again, the right things sometimes have a way of gnawing at people Next professor that says the senses aren't valid gets a book thrown at his head... and I'm serious too Subetai: If I only "suspected it" I would try to find out by trying to get him to give some definite answers. If he continued to evade, I would break off the conversation. How about the Devil's Advocate I had a couple of months ago when talking about Marxist freedom? At what point in the convo could he havebeen kicked? Subetai: Depends how bad it is...some people have developed defense mechanisms that they can't immediately overcome, but you do have to have evidence of this befoer concluding it's Ok to talk with him. Tym: Very early on, though I ahd a bad lag at the time and couldn't really confront you. Tom: right! You can't just say "what if he were shell-shocked or whatever" ...you'd need evidence. Tym: yes...never substitue psychologizing for philosophy. Tom: OK, what was the Advocate saying at the point you would have kicked him? Tym: i think there was a point at which the advocate was denying the mind had anything to do with production...a few more lines after confronting that, and him denying it, and I would ahve kicked him (but not banned yet). Tom: I don't recall any such part where he said that. Here's an example, if I were talking to a christian, a young one, and we began to debate whether there was a god... Tym: It was never really directly confronted...i would ahve done so, but the lag was horrible ;) the christian would have defense mechanisms going off like crazy and once his inference arguments were killed Tom: do it now then :) and his faith arguments were killed he'd be really shell-shocked Tym: you ain't no Marxist...besides, you kick rating is higher than mine ;) you=your but he'd still have all these defense mechs going off Clay: yes, he'd be shaking in his boots. Tom: OK, when would *I* have kicked him? ;) Tym: Well, since you were he, i don't know ;) I couldn't kick you, since your rating is hihger on this channel than mine. It could take quite a while for that person to shake off their notions of god, and god in general Clay: emotionally or conceptually? Tom, how long did it take you to go from a priest-to-be, to an atheist? Clay: Years. Clay: Actually, to not accept God was not so bad...waht took some time was repealing my moral laws ;) what Conceptually, they *have no* notion of "god". That's why it's so hard for them to change. The emotional aspect, the identification of this "idea" as good or evil, can change more quickly because it's usually encountered in that pure, recognizable form. Tom, when were you first confronted with the truth in a thoroughly laid out fashion, how long did it take you after that? Tom: what I'm asking is, would you have kicked the Advocate had you not know it was I? :) Mike, what do you mean? The change in the conceptual architecture of the belief in a "god" is much more difficult because it's a change in one's entire psycho-epistemology, not just an evaluation of one particular thing. Clay: After reading _Atlas Shrugged_ a few years...decades for it to be thoroughly washed out. Tym: Absolutley. Clay:I've studied Objectivism for about twenty years now. I can remember when I was young wondering "how could someone not believe in god? " Tom: at what point? And you can say the "anti-mind" part, cuz he never said that. can't say rather Almost all religious people doubt the evidence of their senses to some degree and admit to miracles. Their belief in the efficacy of their senses is obfuscated by the religious stuff they've learned. That may make them dishonest for denying the .... Clay: And how could someone *not* know that Catholicism (or wahtever) was *right*? Tom, yep self-evident, but it's easy for many of them to lose those beliefs. Tym: Why are you insisting on this line of attack? i don't remember the conversation all that well to give you an exact time and place. What I'm saying is that sometimes a belief in the miraculous is not a fundamental part of their epistemology, but something tacked on to the end, which means nothing to them except in church. Tom: because it points toward tonight's topic. What sort of sense of his context do we need? If Devil's Ad were an academic, would we kick him? What about a curious but ill-informed college student, grappling ideas for the first time? the christian method of thinking, if you can call it that, consists of setting up false axioms, i.e., god, and then equivocating on what reason and faith are in order to try to make room for belief in the unproven Subetai: Sure. oh, and equivocating on what it means to be selfish and selfless, as well... Tym: There is a difference. A Marxist professor? As soon as you found that out. A college kid? Only after you knew he was being evasive. and a whole lot of other things as well.. Tym: I don't think you played the part all that well ;) You also have to keep in mind when dealing w/ students, that the system that we are all educated in is in ruins Clay: Sure. It's collp Tom: OK, and since most IRCers are in college, at what point? If you don't remember or don't think I played it well, show how. collapsing very very fast ClayH: and very few people have had their ideas seriously challanged paulf: unitl college, right? to set the context, I'm a so-called "social science" major until rather ok Tym: If you show him how man's mind is required for there to be the computer he is using to use IRC, and he still denys the mind has anything to do with it, then do it then. Another thing that's relevant to this discussion but we haven't covered yet is the focus on ourselves. What is it worth to *you* to "pick a fight". Your opponent's value to you *personally* may vary, and so would the effort you're willing to devote to .. Tym: they might be reinforced in college, without much challange debating him. Tom: I think the Advocate is a more challenging case ;) Subetai: You're *so* selfish! when I hope that my judicial system teacher gets hit by a bus before class so I'll have time to go do something else, I know that there's a problem Subetai: very good point. Tym: Only because you don't know how to act evasively. I'm not sure that the collar matches the cuff ...and it's not me Tom: or that you couldn't DETECT evasion :) Tym: If it's not detectable, then it wasn't played well. evasion, EVASION? Tom: it happended lomg after you and most people left. On that note, I have a question: let's say you decide someone is not worth debating. What do you say or do? Would you be rude, abrupt, courteous but firm? Is it a matter of choice? What premises should guide your actions there? Tym: By the selfishness principle, I was tired of the "debate" long before I left, but was waiting for a good connect so I could "trap you". Tom: OK :) Subetai: Just tell him politely that you are not interested...if he insists, then you may want to become rud...and kick him for being a nuisance. ;) Tom: why? Subetai: Depends what else is going on #geekspeak. If you are trying to ahve a serious discussion, and he keeps interupting, why not kick him...why put up with him? Tom: I agree. But what if there were nothing else going on? Tom: You said "be polite, then kick him if he doesn't listen". I asked why? How do you justify politeness? How do you justify kicking? so he was wasting space on my computer screen Tym: Then it's up to the selfish principle...do you want to take the time or not? It's generally a good idea to ask what a person means before kicking him. Tom: yep! If you think they're reachable? Subetai: Sure...for instance, if someone were to tell "fingers" that he was being impolite, and he kept making comments, then kick him. Tom: I asked *why*? Subetai: you answered you own question earlier. Matter of fact, I asked the question before fingers intruded into the discussion. Tom: I didn't, so far as I know. Show me where. Subetai: Then you admit he was an intrusion...that's the point in answering "Why kick him?" I asked what the proper response should be. I asked what premises it should be guided by. I questioned if there was a "proper response". Subetai: I agree that they ought to be asked to leave first. Tom: I said that *after* your comment about my answering my own question. Tym: why? Subetai: you pointed out earlier that **if** you had the time/motivation to talk to him, then do it....otherwise, if he is being disruptive, kick him. I'm asking this question: is courtesy a virtue? Politeness? Why? Subetai: politeness I suppose. Subetai: I think it is in our rational self interest to attempt to convert people when Clinton's approval rating is considered. bmcd: I'm not out to convert anyone. why not? Subetai: Within certain bounds, being polite is rational...it is the recognition that the other fellow has volition, and if you want to convince him, you need to be polite (i.e. take him seriously). What's the criterion for those "certain bounds"? On that note, i need to be going...I've stayed up too late all this week...so long... (I know the answer. I'm trying to make sure we cover this). Bye Tom. Thanks for participating. Subetai: your selfish concerns, your time, what is it worth, etc. bye Tom Tom: No Subetai: if he is taking ideas seriously, then be polite, otherwise, don't be polite (since taht would be sanctioning him). hi all. hello Courtesy is extended to someone because he's a human being, and hasn't done anything to demote himself from that consideration (like murder). Other than that it depends on his bahavior. got to go... Not my time. later Tom I might agree with that...depends on the context ;) It depends on whether *he's* courteous to me. If I were in a hurry, I'd still be polite. Is merely throwing a book, rather than a knife, at my professor, polite? No. :( Thanks for the discussion, Tym. :) I'm pretty sure that he's just jello w/ a human face, anyway What if I just throw a piece of wadded up paper at him? Clay: who is this person? Tym, a professor who said the senses are "deceivers" and used the relativity of perception to attempt to establish it as fact Clay: did you ask him what *sense* he used to establish that fact? I thought throwing something at him would be either a good object lesson for him, or for the rest of the class He talks in a manner which makes it hard to determine when he is stating someone elses position, and when he is stating his own I'm still not positive he was saying it was his position I must say that it spurred my interest in the topic of perception though I'm still trying to sort out a few things regarding the form-object distinction