This is good philosophy, and I should try this more often.

In that article, I disagreed with the first example.  I assumed the test pilot was a woman, as I'd heard versions of that before.  But how did he "know" that the girl was her daughter?  It could have been a niece or something.  I think it says something about the author's preconceptions that women only go out in public with their own daughters. :p

I had heard versions of that too, so it didn't work on me either.  Question is:  the author's purpose is to MAKE you think it is a man when it is a woman, right?  So subtle author deceit could be another factor.

I think it's important to avoid getting caught up on just the one example.

A question that occurs to me, does anyone here remember having moderate or strong views on a topic, got into a debate with someone who held opposing views, and was swayed by her arguments?

I can think of cases, especially with evilkate, where I grew more comfortable with her side, but still didn't really agree with it.  On the other hand, when I was around people who had a view and just answered my questions or invited me to do my own research, but didn't intentionally challenge me, I know of several examples where I changed views relatively quickly.

I look at the logic and the facts, and will change opinion accordingly, but personal opinion is harder to change if it does not rest on logic or facts.  That's the difficulty with an argument compared with instruction or sharing.

Again, I think it's worth restricting the question to things which cannot be clearly proven.  I'm sure, as a lawyer, you're regularly presented with convincing arguments that ultimately seem to prove a strictly literal, factual story!  SO things like communism vs. capitalism, gun control, abortion, etc., where a video camera or a text book on the subject couldn't definitively prove one view as right.

Actually, strictly factual, literal stories are few and far between because there are always two sides to a story, meaning that there are always at least two stories from which you need to interpret what "really happened" as an objective outsider.

I thought there were always three stories, 1) the story from person A, 2) the story from person B, 3) the truth. :)

Regardless though, I don't know if we could agree there is "the truth" about whether communism is better than capitalism, etc.

What I gathered from the article was not that these people actually thought their faults were ok, but rather that they still defended their previous beliefs eventhough they were even more aware that they were wrong. That is, even if the feminists did have a change of heart about their own views, they still were too stubborn to admit they were wrong.

At any rate, even if the article didn't say that, it's what I believe to be true about human nature. I think that people who smoke know it's bad for them and that in private, they probably do think ill of their own habit and may try to quit. However, when attacked by someone face-to-face of course they won't admit they are wrong for fear of embarrassment. I believe that humans are social creatures and the opinions of others are even sometimes more important to us than our opinions of ourselves. Thus, even when people know they are wrong they will still exhibit the behavior of defending themselves just because they don't want to be made to look like a fool.

People are prideful about their identities. They create labels for themselves to help fit in with society. If a person labels herself a feminist then is challenged with knowledge to the contrary, even if she believes that her actions are anti-feminist she will refuse to change because change causes her to not fit in anymore. It causes her stress at having lost her identity. It scares her that she doesn't really know herself and that she may have to redefine her identity within society.

I think that the power that society has over our thoughts and actions cannot be divorced from this debate. What we believe and how we act are quite often very different. And I think much of the reason for that is owed to societal influences.

I could agree that that's what the article was trying to say, but I don't think the example of the feminists that was given actually illustrates this.  Showing a feminist that she too has unconscious gender biases doesn't show that she's wrong in her beliefs about feminism.


Smoking isn't the best example, probably, because it's more an issue of willpower than reasoning in most cases.  Most smokers that I know freely admit that smoking is bad for them.  Some of them want to quit, but don't manage to do so, others realize it's bad for them, but feel the enjoyment they get out of it outweighs the harm they do.  None of them claim to think it's really not bad for them, though.


I can agree with that.


I agree with the general idea here, but I think the feminist example you give doesn't work.  Feminism is a set of beliefs about how things should be, not necessarily how they are.  Showing a feminist that they don't live up to their own ideals doesn't make their ideals invalid, anymore than showing a christian examples of their own sins makes them think, "well, I guess I was wrong about christianity."  I get what you're saying, and largely agree, I just don't think the specific example used fits very well.


I agree that the influence of society is quite large, and concerns about ones place within it play a large part of what what thinks and does.  I'm less sure about the "often" part of "what we believe and how we act are quite often very different."  While we may act in ways contrary to our beliefs to fit in from time to time, I'd say it's more likely that our beliefs change to better fit those around us, rather than just our actions changing.

I'd agree that it's very rare for people to change their views during the arguement.  My ex-girlfriend was vegitarian, and I used to come up with arguements against it (mostly just to get her fired up, I admit), and didn't really pay much attention to her arguements for it.  A while after we had broken up, though, I got to thinking about some of the points she had raised, and changed my mind and became a vegitarian.  So a very delayed changing of mind, but it was, at least in part, due to arguements she had presented.  I do think the reason it took so long was just the kind of thing this article was talking about though.  I didn't want to have to a) admit I was wrong, and b) change my lifestyle.



It's definately easier to change your view when it's not an arguement.  But I'd guess that part of that is the fact that you're less likely to be arguing about things you don't have very strong views about already.  If you can be in a coversation about something you don't agree with without arguing about it, it's probably something you don't feel so strongly about, and are more willing to consider changing your mind on.

One last point that hasn't been addressed so far is that sometimes debates between persons A and B might not change A or B's mind, but could change C or D's mind.  People listening to the arguement, but who aren't so directly involved might be more likely to change their minds, since they can do so less publicly, so to speak.

This is the question that I specifically wanted to reply to.  I did, and I'm pretty sure it was you who did it, in that debate on CC about Hiroshima.  I've always thought that was wrong, but after reading the arguments given for it in that thread, I did a little bit of looking into them, and they hold up pretty well.  The only thing that still bothers me about it is the idea that the scientists weren't sure a reaction that size was going to stop before it blew up everybody, and I couldn't substantiate that...so the balance in my mind definitely tipped in that debate.


This confuses me a little.  How do you present somebody with evidence to the contrary about what they are?  You can maybe say their actions don't fit your notions of feminism, say, or some other outside definition, but that only means they're not what this outside source would mean by the label.  It doesn't mean she isn't what she means by it.  Labels, even when we use them inside ourselves, are always oversimplifications for convenience...but people are usually basically right about what they, themselves, are, I think.

I also agree with Tycho.  Incidentally, I did once talk a vegetarian out of it...but it's definitely harder, for many very solid reasons, to convince someone to make their own life harder, than to convince them to go the easy way.

Recent LDS General Conference, Saturday Morning session.  The original can be viewed at http://byu.tv/ LDS General Conference 10:00am  The talk starts at 1:01:28 into the video and ends at 1:18:25. 

Saw this in the editorials today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...inion/17kristof.html
and it reminded me of this thread.  Interesting stuff!

That was interesting, but I was just really busy tonight and didn't have time to read the last four paragraphs at all... :p

Are we to debate the general content of this article or its opinions on Democrats primaries?

Whatever you feel like.  This was more a "you might find this interesting" post than anything I thought would create much debate.

A bit of a spin off from the LDS thread, since I wanted to make sure TitL didn't misunderstand what I was saying as implying that he was being closed minded.  The paradigm issue that I'm talking about is more along the lines of "I can't change your mind on this particular point because given your paradigm (ie, the other things you already believe) your position is the logical conclusion."  In other words, I'm not saying TitL won't listen, or won't consider other views, but rather that the view he holds is the rational, logical conclusion that would come based on the other things he already believes.  In order to change his mind about the prophecy in Mathew 24, I'd first need to change his mind about a bunch of other things.  No amount of arguing just about those particular verses will change his mind, because given the other things he already considers to be true, his interpretation is the correct the logical conclusion.

The reason we see different things when we read the same verse is because we have different assumptions that the evidence (ie the text) gets filtered through.  If you already believe the Jesus is God, and that the bible is infallible, then the logical conclusion when looking at that verse is that Jesus worded things slightly oddly, and really meant something other than that the generation he was talking to wouldn't pass before the end times.  The other interpretation (that Jesus really meant just what it looks like, but was wrong) contradicts the starting assumptions, so isn't possible.  In order to believe that, one would have to give up those starting assumptions, and if those assumptions are strongly believed, it's much easier to accept a slightly odd phrasing than to drop a strongly-held assumption.

On the other hand, I'm coming from a different paradigm, and don't share those assumptions.  The "Jesus was wrong" conclusion doesn't contradict my starting assumptions, so its more logical for me to accept that than the odd phraseology interpretation.  Neither conclusion butts up against my assumptions, so the simpler one is the natural one for me to reach.

Put in less abstract terms, for me the question boils down just to "does it mean what it looks like at first look, or does it an odd, somewhat ambiguous way to word something that means something very different?"  But for TitL its question of "is it an odd, somewhat ambiguous way to word something, or are some of my core values wrong and much of my world view incorrect?"  In each case, the first possibility is the simpler one, and thus rational one to reach, even though that means we end up at opposite conclusions.

So that's what I was saying when I said I couldn't change TitL's mind about that particular chapter.  Not that he was being closed-minded, or wouldn't listen to reason, but rather that our differing assumptions would lead naturally to different conclusions.  Put another way, our disagreement over the meaning of Jesus' words in that case is a product of other things we disagree about, rather than a cause of the other disagreements, and arguing about those particular words while we still disagree about the other stuff wouldn't get us anywhere.

There has been a lot of research about this in terms of social psychology, and in the end it is a very complicated issue. Generally people with fanatical beliefs will address conflicting evidence with conflict- either refutation or denial. there was a wonderfull study of a UFO cult which became more fanatical and began prosthetysing (where before they were very secretive and exclusive) when the UFO failed to show up.
On the other hand it can be pushed to the breaking point- in one case a tribe whose world view defined everything in terms of anscestral reverence litterally sat down and starved to death because their world view could not handle the existance of steel axes.
Less fanatical beliefs on the other hand tend to become modified rather than simply abandoned when conflicting evidence s presented, ussually after research into that evidence- very few people will believe conflicting evidence based on simple presentation, though many will believe supporting evidence based on simple statement even when the source has proven unreliable (which is why Fox News is still 'the most trusted name in journalism' when there have been no death panels and Obama didn't turn the country over to muslims the way they predicted- their audience litterally has nowhere else to go to hear their biases confirmed.)
The real trick in intelectual honesty is trying to be skeptical of those who agree with you.

Well to be honest Tycho, you really haven't shown Matthew 24 to be incorrect in any way at this point. You siad it didn't match up, but didn't point out what doesn't match up.

I get the idea that there is more information to be seen, but at this point, there's no reason to alter any view without reason why it doesn't fit.


To point out the obvious, you just start at a different assumption. You are assuming that my position is based on assumption for one, and two, you are assuming that the prophecy doesn't match up. (Though if you provide a verse to reinforce your view, it does remove one assumption)

Actually, if it reads as straight forward, why can't it be prophetic, and reasonable logic?

It matches up perfectly from what I see.  "this generation will not pass from the scene until all these things take place."  While I believe "this generation" means the Christian generation (around 33% of the world, still on the scene)the biggest part of it all is what comes after that claim.

Verse 36  "However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself.  Only the Father knows."

Those are huge words.  Jesus himself just said he didn't know when it was going to happen.

On the other hand day and hour are pretty much opposite ends of the scale (at that time) from the year or the generation or the millenia...
Of course now we have microseconds and picoseconds which puts days and hours squarely in the middle, but at the time I think not knowing the day or the hour would still let you say which generation (30 year time frame) it would happen in.

Okay.  Like I said, didn't expect/intend for you to alter your view.


Yes, definitely.


Hmm...perhaps we are using the word "assumption" in a different sense here.  Every position is based on assumption in the sense that I'm using it.  It's not an insult or slight to say it.  If you prefer axiom, or a priori knowledge, or whatever, I can use that term instead.  I don't mean it in the less formal sense, where people usually mean it as a bad thing.


No, I'm not using that assumption.


Because the straight-forward reading implies the prophecy didn't come true.  You need a different interpretation than the straight-forward one for it to fit your beliefs.  That (interpreting it in light of your beliefs) is a reasonable position, though, as I said already.

Interesting take.  Different from the one I hear most christians give.  Like I said, though, different paradigms will lead to different interpretations.  The upside of this one (compared to the standard christiand response) is that it makes the statement non-tautological, the down-side (in my view at least) is that it's even less natural diction.  I for one have never thought "generation" meant "everyone alive from now into the future who all share a same belief system."  But again, we'll reach different conclusions because we start from different points of view.  My intent/expectation wasn't to change anyone's minds on this passage, but rather just point out that what people think it means depends on what else they believe when they read it.


Yeah, definitely.  Means there's something Jesus doesn't know.  Means Jesus isn't omniscient.  Which means either 1) Jesus isn't God, or 2) God isn't omniscient.  But again, people coming from another set of prior beliefs will reach a different conclusion.