Mistakes
There is a lot of disagreement in things like: religion, politics, philosophy.
(In particular with the latter, people on this forum disagree with each other!)
When one person disagrees with another this means that each thinks the other has made a mistake of some kind.
My question is: exactly what (kind of) mistake does each think the other is making?
So, I would like people to respond to this post about particular disagreements they have.
Saying what they think is the mistake that is being made by the people they disagree with.
For example: Christians, can you say what mistake you think non-Christians (non-theists in particular) are making?
And vice-versa.
Another example might be left-wing vs right-wing. (Like Democrats vs Republicans.)
Or people who have opposing views on Free will.
Of course with some disagreements the disagreement is not because of mistake at all. (And so maybe not a 'disagreement' at all, strictly speaking.) For example the (famous late 19th century) Brahms vs Wagner schism (a more recent equivalent might be Beatles vs Rolling Stones). This disagreement isn’t based on one group thinking the other has made a mistake. (Or it shouldn’t do anyway.) It’s just that they have different tastes.
Some other things.
First, there is less disagreement in science than there is in philosophy. But, given that both are based on rational thought, I would have thought there would be about the same in each. In fact, the subject with the the least disagreement is mathematics. I would have expected philosophy to have about the same levels of disagreement as that.
When I talk about knowing what mistake the wrong person has made, I mean exactly that. For example when someone makes a mistake adding up some numbers. Then I know exactly what kind of mistake that is. Mostly because I have in the past made the same mistake myself. The mistake is one of not paying attention. Of not concentrating.
(It’s possible that my question makes no sense. Or that it’s a lot more complicated than I think it is.)
(In particular with the latter, people on this forum disagree with each other!)
When one person disagrees with another this means that each thinks the other has made a mistake of some kind.
My question is: exactly what (kind of) mistake does each think the other is making?
So, I would like people to respond to this post about particular disagreements they have.
Saying what they think is the mistake that is being made by the people they disagree with.
For example: Christians, can you say what mistake you think non-Christians (non-theists in particular) are making?
And vice-versa.
Another example might be left-wing vs right-wing. (Like Democrats vs Republicans.)
Or people who have opposing views on Free will.
Of course with some disagreements the disagreement is not because of mistake at all. (And so maybe not a 'disagreement' at all, strictly speaking.) For example the (famous late 19th century) Brahms vs Wagner schism (a more recent equivalent might be Beatles vs Rolling Stones). This disagreement isn’t based on one group thinking the other has made a mistake. (Or it shouldn’t do anyway.) It’s just that they have different tastes.
Some other things.
First, there is less disagreement in science than there is in philosophy. But, given that both are based on rational thought, I would have thought there would be about the same in each. In fact, the subject with the the least disagreement is mathematics. I would have expected philosophy to have about the same levels of disagreement as that.
When I talk about knowing what mistake the wrong person has made, I mean exactly that. For example when someone makes a mistake adding up some numbers. Then I know exactly what kind of mistake that is. Mostly because I have in the past made the same mistake myself. The mistake is one of not paying attention. Of not concentrating.
(It’s possible that my question makes no sense. Or that it’s a lot more complicated than I think it is.)
Comments (13)
You have opened up a wider area of discussion than mine. I am inclined to think that people, especially in philosophy have a great amount of attachment to their views. In religious circles, people are probably more open about this because they speak in terms of their 'faith,' whereas philosophers do not use such a word often but they probably do have great investment, emotionally, in the way they have constructed their own thinking.
In terms of 'mistakes', I am often quite surprised by the way in which others, including some on this forum, jump in to point out to people that they are mistaken. It can be dismissive and defensive, and perhaps it is a cover up for lack of certainty.
Both are based on thought but there are tools and standards in science that people must agree to use prior to testing each other's theories. And usually they're talking about more concrete applications.
I'm quite sure there's a standard method in philosophical discourse but the topics seem more abstract and open ended.
This is usually because we have a stupid habit (myself included) of assuming the other person is starting form the same premises as us. In whichcase the only way to reach a conclusion would be to make a logical error.
Quoting tinman917
In other words different starting premises.
Quoting tinman917
Well philosophy is untestable. I can't show you empirical evidence to support my metaphysical theory.
Quoting Jack Cummins
:up:
1. Having unjustified assumptions in your argument. I've been watching videos on youtube on what some refer to as self-evident truths, truths that need no argument to prop them up but I'm deeply suspicious of such claims. However, if one asks that some prropositions to be treated axiomatically then I don't mind it for axioms are essentially propositions that, if made explicit, are of the form "assume to be true the proposition that..." and that's completely legit as an exploratory maneuver.
2. Errors in logic and these can take the form of cognitive biases, formal and informal fallacies. You can look these up on Google.
3. A different kind of mistake is the inconsistency or contradiction in a belief system. The logic is impeccable, the propositions are axiomatic but the propositions are inconsistent or contradictory.
4. The last and the one mistake that I fear the most is what Wolfgang Pauli (1900 - 1958) was said to have accused a young physicist of committing, "you're not even wrong".
[quote=Wikipedia]The phrase is generally attributed to the theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or careless thinking. Rudolf Peierls documents an instance in which "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'." This is also often quoted as "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong", or in Pauli's native German, "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!"[/quote]
:chin: It must count as a really sad day for the person who couldn't even make a mistake, forget about getting it right!
I am glad that you think that mistakes are an important pathway. When I write, I am aware that probably a lot of what I say will contain ideas that I will later look back upon and ask why did I ever say that? But I do believe that thinking and writing are experimental and risk taking is part of the process of discovery.
I also think that our own egos get in the way. Discussion whether in the form or talking or writing is discourse with others, exposing us to potential shame and humiliation. When I was thinking about questions of truth in other posts I ended up wondering what if the truth which I found was one which led me to complete rejection by others and whether I would be strong enough to encompass others' complete rejection? But perhaps, we just need to take risks and not fear others telling us that we have made mistakes.
Within science, the method of valuation is clear, demonstrate through the evidence to reasonably or definitively prove or disprove a claim. Within philosophy, there is no such clarity, rather, valuation is so ridiculously complicated and nuanced that there's almost no chance of sharing one with someone else, let alone everyone else. The simple answer is that philosophy draws on personal aspects of ourselves which are crucial in the conclusions we arrive at. It is not at all surprising that my views are not held by people with very different personalities, circumstances and so on.
Besides that, even if we're essentially identical in our thinking, that doesn't mean we'll agree at all. Take tribalism as an example, of its nature, different groups with tribalistic attitudes will be drawn into conflict.
In science, it's not like that, if we all agree the Earth is round then our opinions must be harmonious. I simply don't think it's reasonable to expect philosophy and science to function similarly with regards to the homogeneousness of opinions in the respective fields.
It's an odd thought that a member would jump-in to cover-up their uncertainty.
I just think it is so easy to jump into discussions on the forum, for worse or better. I am guilty of jumping into conversations because it is has never been easier without the shackles of the three dimensional world.
But I like to keep hold of reflective awareness, and make no judgements about others' intentions, although I do recommend mindfulness in which expressed of ideas is so instant, by the mere touch of letters on the keyboard.
It is an arena for potential mistakes and other interesting phenomena. Apart from mistakes, the consequences may be exciting, and be springboard for thoughts in the aftermath of mistakes. Perhaps the mistakes foreshadowed greater clarity of examined forms of thinking.
(Green is true or valid, red is false or invalid).
This is the way I look for truth. I will argue my case attempting to counter the opposing view. My views will either
/be reinforced by the other person's inability to pose a counter argument that I find logically disputes my premise or by their agreement through my convincing them
or
/will be defeated by a better argument
or
/my premise may be left in a state of flux leading me to try and come up with a better premise.
All these outcomes are valuable to me. The "mistakes" made by other people if a premise remains disputed is their lack of logically countering my argument.
I disagree with utopian visions. The mistake is in thinking that human beings are perfectible.