Yes.
A reasonable position and uncritical acceptance of a narrative are indistinguishable without the reasoning behind it. And I sincerely wish I could give others the benefit of the doubt that they reasoned their way to their beliefs, and I used to. But that assumption has been repeatedly violated that I’d be stupid to maintain it.
But what if my perspective differs?
Argumentation cannot account for that.
Argumentation requires a shared perspective and shared axioms.
If a worldview is devoid of reason and no argument will dissuade the person, all useful dialog is impossible.
It isn’t a worldview devoid of reason. It’s perfectly good reason based upon a set of assumptions that differ from yours.
Reason is the house. The assumptions is the ground upon which the house is built.
Some ground is rock, some swamp, some flat, sloped… all require different house designs. Dig?
There is still a foundation that you should be able to explain. Do you want to just explain what happened instead of talking in hypotheticals? What is your hot take?
Correct me if I’m wrong, OP, but it sounds like you’re talking about retreating to the axioms of the particular belief system, as in there is a point where reason breaks down because you get to things that you (the person whose expressing their opinion) have accepted that’s different than me.
To me this is a bit of a Motte and Bailey fallacy as your question was whether or not you have a good argument and then someone replied to that and then moved to the set of assumptions which has nothing to do with argument.
For me personally, the other person has to demonstrate some level of critical reasoning for me to respect their opinions, even if their assumptions are different than mine. Beliefs that are entered into using reasoning are more useful than ones without because they can be changed which is what discourse is all about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
Today I learned! :)
That’s technically true, but the question then becomes, why are our assumptions different?
If it’s based on different beliefs of what reality is (ground work), it would be normal to fight for truth.
If it’s based on our affinity for the result of the argumentation (the house), it would also be normal to fight for our own benefit and those like us.
So realistically i don’t see any reason as to why we should respect each other’s opinions… all would incentives us to fight for the correct assumptions.
This in itself doesn’t mean we should stop respecting people though!
Really? A worldview requiring accepting ideas without verification and contrary to logic isn’t devoid of reason? In what planet?
If your perspective differs, then to the extent that it’s not extremely outrageous, all the better!
Argumentation doesn’t require a shared perspective and shared axioms (except concerning the conduct of arguing). Fundamentally, it requires that we be willing to be taken on the perspective of others and lead them to where we are, or allow ourselves to be led to where they are. This isn’t common on online discussions because of the incentives of online “debates”, which isn’t to be persuaded or to spend time typing out thoughtful responses with which someone can bite and chew on to serve up something equally worthwhile.
In other words, it’s not that people disagree that’s the problem. It’s how we disagree that leads to the cesspool that internet discussions often devolve into. If you want to argue and try to understand another person, then there’s no reason that can’t happen.
But language cannot convey perspective. It can only refer to it. Language only works when perspective is shared.
If perspective is not shared then, tho we use the same words, the meaning we assign to them differs. We may appear to be communicating but we really aren’t quite, there’s something broken there, and that brokenness generally gets translated as “this guy is just stupid”.
This is a problem with language and the internet.
I know exactly what you mean!
But there’s a really easy way to solve that problem: ask for clarification and then check to make sure your understanding of the concept matches theirs.
For example, when you say “We may appear to be communicating but we really aren’t quite”, the meaning of the word ’ ‘communicating’ slides between different meanings. From my understanding, in the first case you mean a shared understanding of the terms under discussion, and in the second case you mean talking past each other, where people don’t really address the substance of the discussion.
Right? And you’re saying this is a problem of language and the internet?
If so, then I agree that it’s a problem of language, and one that language can just as easily solve. I don’t think it’s a problem of the internet, though, but the social dynamics of internet certainly don’t help.
Some opinions cannot be explained. For example “chocolate is better than vanilla”.
There are a lot of those. It’s the earth upon which all argumentation stands.
So at some point the question arises, “do I respect the individual?”
But for us, on the internet, the individual doesn’t really exist?
Aye, those are preferences and largely entirely subjective (because I prefer vanilla over chocolate).
So at some point the question arises, “do I respect the individual?”
This question is always there.
“I enjoy chocolate more” and “I associate chocolate with positive memories” are both explanations that are still personal experience that isn’t necessarily shared experiences but can be understood through communication.
You can have different perspectives on observable facts. But if your perspective runs counter to observable facts then you’re simply wrong.
If it’s a subjective matter then no. Like if you thought Blade Runner sucked I might disagree with your opinion but respect that it’s a matter of taste and so I won’t recommend you see the sequel.
If you’re just using “opinion” as a shield for something objective then yes I will. And I will laugh at you for thinking the sky is falling is a matter of opinion.
Depending on what you mean by respect and opinion, yes. If you’re discussing an opinion then someone is probably going to expect you to explain why, that’s a logical point to cover in any such discussion. Even if it’s subjective. If it’s an opinion on something objective, then there’s an actual burden of “proof” and possible consequences, and the stakes rise accordingly.
There aren’t many reasons to “properly” respect an opinion that is irrational (not just subjective), factually wrong (“interpretation” only goes so far), dishonest, or anything like that. I’m skeptical of endorsing any opinion until I know why it is what it is.
I like chocolate feel free to be skeptical of endorsing it all you like I don’t need to explain myself
People that spend energy on arguing their right to have opinions rather than defending the opinion are deeply uninteresting and often stupid people that I don’t not respect in any capacity.
I do agree those people you speak about are uninteresting and mostly stupid.
But we should respect stupid people, their ideas aren’t always worth respecting, but as people they themselves deserve considering.
And I praise anyone that has the patience to teach morons to be better people despite their own lack of judgment.
I described a behaviour and two qualities. I said that people with the behaviour often have these two qualities. I then said I dont respect people with that behaviour.
There are a lot if people that are stupid but still fun and interesting people. They have skills that I don’t have and perspectives that I don’t have. They have found ways to interact with the world that works with their shortcomings. I respect them.
Some stupid people decide to hide their stupidity by spending a lot of time arguing that they shouldn’t have to elaborate on their opinion and we should treat all opinions the same without scrutiny. They dont grow, they dont learn, they make their own shortcomings other peoples problem. I dont respect them.
I get that, most people are like you, it’s normal. Best thing for everyone is to avoid those persons.
But my point of view is a lot more optimistic, i think having this behavior isn’t all their are defined as. They can still grow and learn, especially on other area of life.
Depending on how much they rely on this behavior you can have two approach…
If it’s little, you can teach them better without them knowing, as long as it doesn’t directly clash with their dogma, but it requires to be subtle.
If they rely to much on it, the best course is to detach their opinions from the real world and only speak to them with very down to earth things.
I know it will not always really work, most of the time my optimistic view is to idealistic. I can have it because i’m more tolerant, maybe too much.
The goods thing is, even if i’m wrong, i can enjoy myself doing this, and for the rare time i do change something in that person, well that feels great.
Yeah those guys are the worst.
You are literally one of those guys. All your replies in this thread is you being that guy.
Hahahahaha yeah, no. You dont need to be smart to be able to talk someone down. Not everyone who is smart wants to fight others every step of the way.
Making statements that degrade others like this shows a deep lack of understanding and empathy.
that the sky is blue for your doesnt mean its blue for everyone. Sure you can debate people, with consent though.
Have a good one.
I also dont respect people that start comments with a joker laugh.
No problem. Blocked.
It depends on how harmful that opinion is. You prefer vanilla ice cream because you like the mild flavor - cool, difference of opinion. You prefer there were no same-sex marriages because your religion is against it - no, that affects other people’s lives so if you want me to respect that opinion you would have to have a good argument.
Sort of. I respect your right to have an opinion, but I’ll respect the opinion a lot more if backed by facts and data.
I would say yes. The only time you don’t is when I already agree with you, but that’s because I (hopefully) already know the good argument.
I don’t believe in “common sense”, that’s just the biases someone already has. Some of them correct, some of them not, all unchecked therefore all invalid as a basis for anything.
If we could dispose of respect for the individual, then we could replace democracy with science. That would be efficient.
Science doesn’t have values, and policy needs values. Science can tell you the best way to achieve your values, but if your values don’t align with the values of the majority of people, then you’re going to use science to make people unhappy.
It sounds like you just want to impose your values onto other people, which is precisely what democracy was invented to protect people against.
I respect facts and objective evidence. Opinion is immaterial.
Otherwise, there is no point to it.
Unfortunately there are many subjects where all the facts aren’t known, therefore opinions must be discussed to advance the understanding and ultimately help to establish future facts. Also, one person’s believed facts may be a misunderstanding, for example, hence why discussions and arguments may happen.
As such, there is (nearly) always a point to it!
No, but you need a good argument if you want me to support or act on your opinion.
How does authority figure in?
I don’t understand his reasoning but he’s got a good reputation. Or cites such.
Authority means I’ll give an opinion a second look if my first instinct is to ignore someone, only if it’s in their area of expertise.
If there’s authority without expertise, it means nothing to me.
It isn’t a fallacy. It works pretty good most of the time, it’s easier than doing your own research and it’s how we get 99% of the information in our society.
It’s not a black and white thing - some reliance on experts is of course necessary.
Google “appeal to authority fallacy”, there are many examples.
good. no. valid. yes. as long as the premise is reasonable and its logical. If its about how you feel or everyone does it type of thing I just won’t care as long as it just effects you.
I have friends who i disagree with but respect because i know they’ve considered different angles and made a decision that feels right to them. I have friends who i disagree with and do not respect because they believe (or pretend to believe?) what their family, husband, tv tell them and can’t express any real thoughts or opinions of their own.
Yes
What if they simply see things differently?
Chocolate is better than vanilla. Argument? Of course not.
Argument requires shared assumptions. If the assumptions are not shared then you can’t argue.
And then what’s left? Respect for the individual?
“Chocolate is better than vanilla” is surprisingly ambiguous. If you said “I prefer chocolate over vanilla” there’s no argument because that’s a subjective statement. If you said “the human pallet prefers chocolate to vanilla, thus those that prefer vanilla are defective” well now you have made far more than a subjective statement that also labels those that don’t share it, you have to be prepared to defend that. If you said “chocolate is healthier than vanilla” then you might need to at least be able to provide some facts and figures like lower sugar content or something.
The point is: when it’s a matter of subjective preference, presented in a way that makes no judgments of dissenters, no arguments should be expected. Making a claim of fact may require evidence. And making a critique of others is asking for a fight.
If you want to persuade me to think the way you do, yes.
What if I want the right to vote?
Your opinion doesn’t need to be respectable for you to have the right to vote.
Would you like to take “the right to vote” away from those who’s opinions you do not respect?
No
why would i take the right to vote away from someone just because i don’t like how they think?
if someone has the opinion that we should take away someones right to vote just because we don’t agree with them. that’s the group who i do not respect. i don’t respect the individual that thinks that way and i don’t respect their opinion.
What if our opinions are similar?
Depends on what it is about. We meet and you say :
- You’re vegan. Good.
- You use Linux. Good.
- You’re on the Fediverse. Good.
- You love bicycles. Good.
Now we meet again and you talk about privacy and then ask for my WhatsApp number (which is non existing) to continue that conversation later -> The heat is on! 🔥
So it depends on the threat level. That’s prudent.
There’s tiers.
I have no respect for an opinion that the holder doesn’t understand well enough to argue since they are parroting a “common sense” belief based on premises which are easily disprovable.
I can respect an opinion I disagree with which the holder understands, but up until the point where they are willing to argue in good faith. If they are deliberately spreading info which they know to be false because it’s to their advantage that others hold those beliefs, I thinknit’s a major problem. If they refuse to entertain any challenge to their opinion however obvious, that is also a problem.
The opinion I disagree with which I respect the most is one that is in total good faith which causes me to question my opinion. This is how I learn.
I don’t think in terms of respect about something like this as this leans towards some kind of snobbery or predudice. Either I agree or don’t. Regardless of any perceived level of knowledge or intelligence behind an argument, I’ll respond as a point of advancing shared knowledge rather than trying to ‘win’.
