[HN Gopher] Socrates on the blessing of being refuted
___________________________________________________________________
Socrates on the blessing of being refuted
Author : AverilS
Score : 122 points
Date : 2022-01-30 12:17 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (antigonejournal.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (antigonejournal.com)
| motohagiography wrote:
| The anti-pattern version of this reminds me of a phrase I can't
| seem to source, which is, "to question by assertion," which means
| making assertions with the intent that the listener respond by
| refuting them. It's a really fast technique to get information (I
| think I learned it from reporters, prosecutors, or perhaps just
| my mother), where you assert the contrapositive or a begged
| question about the thing you want to know, and use the churning
| brain of the listener parsing it through to yield their view.
| It's supremely irritating and emotionally abusive to anyone who
| trusts you, and viewed this way I can see how Socrates got
| himself whacked, but I'd wonder if this tactic has a name in
| another discipline. The only effective defense is to blow off the
| question, set a firm personal boundary where you don't feel
| obligated to answer any questions at all because they aren't
| sincere inquiries, and dismiss them as traps.
|
| If only Socrates were alive to have someone "well, actually..."
| him on the internet.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| Funny, coz Socrates' interlocutors in Plato's dialogues exist
| only to agree and affirm all his arguments like bobbleheads, or
| to be epically dunked on.
|
| Epistemic humility is more discussed for signalling purposes than
| actually practiced.
|
| The Republic is a particularly notable example of this kind of
| thing:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqGsg01ycpk
| [deleted]
| steelstraw wrote:
| Joe Rogan actually just made that basic point in his response
| regarding the Spotify controversy. He thanked even his haters and
| addressed the concerns. Some changes have already been made. He
| was very gracious to Neil Young to boot.
|
| https://www.instagram.com/tv/CZYQ_nDJi6G/
|
| If more people had that kind of response and mindset, maybe we
| could get back to solving problems instead of the constant tit
| for tat tribalism that is in the process of destroying us.
| teachrdan wrote:
| Honest question: If Joe Rogan continues to amplify the voices
| of conspiracists, and his listeners continue to heed them --
| for example, by refusing to get vaccinated against Covid --
| does his thanking his "haters" matter? Isn't the point that he
| should stop providing a platform to people who deny that Covid
| is a threat or that climate change is real?
|
| I don't mean to sound like a dick here. But I think it's a bit
| of a red herring to focus on the quality of someone's apology
| when they continue to do harm.
| steelstraw wrote:
| I reject that hypothesis. Open dialogue is not what's harmful
| and those who seek to silence or censor have never ended up
| on the right side of history. The only thing that works over
| the course of time is fighting bad information with better
| information.
|
| Besides, no one could do as much damage as the official
| sources have done to themselves throughout the Covid
| pandemic. People are just forgetting the mountain of
| misinformation they spread. Starting with "masks don't work"
| and "closing travel is racist" and "the possibility of a lab
| leak is a crazy conspiracy theory". Big tech actually banned
| people for that and yet still think they should be the
| gatekeepers? Where is the humility? That's an environment not
| unlike that of Gallio. Which the church and priests who
| assert themselves as the source of truth while expelling the
| heretics.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| One doesn't have to be pro-government to recognize that Joe
| Rogan is acting in extremely bad faith. He has a lucrative
| financial agreement that incentivizes him to drive
| viewership - he's not promoting open dialogue, he's
| promoting topics and guests that will attract polemics to
| drive ratings.
| steelstraw wrote:
| You're describing the corporate media. Rogan is just
| doing what he's been doing for thousands of hours: Having
| conversations with a wide variety of people across the
| spectrum. Fundamentally they're trying to control and
| narrow who he has a conversation with.
|
| When he had Bernie Sanders on (who he supported), Bernie
| was pressured to reject Rogan's support. Guilt by
| association. That's how tribal all of this is.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| The corporate media definitely does it, and it didn't
| come as any surprise to me that Joe Rogan began fomenting
| controversy far more often after the $100M move to
| Spotify. Can't have an "open dialogue" with that much
| money in the balance.
| kipchak wrote:
| Is the contract viewership based? I thought it was just a
| straight 100M.
| steelstraw wrote:
| I'm not sure that changes his payday at all and don't see
| that kind of change on his side. He had many
| controversial guests like Alex Jones prior to Spotify.
| He's been doing this since 2009 and has over 1,700
| episodes.
|
| The controversy is from the corporate media and other
| gatekeepers now attacking him. He's the tip of the spear
| that is threatening their business model and control over
| the narrative. It's not so much about Joe as it's about
| elite gatekeepers vs independent media. The same fight is
| being waged against Substack. They just lack this kind of
| central figure to point at and demonize.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| People had plenty of problems with Joe's guests before
| the Spotify contract - the blowback was immediate and
| Spotify removed dozens of episodes from his back-catalog:
|
| https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/04/06/joe-rogan-
| spotif...
|
| I think its more controversial now only because people
| have leverage over Spotify - when he self hosted his show
| there really wasn't a way to protest. You could boycott
| the advertisers I guess but I don't think MeUndies and
| Butcher Box would have cared.
| watwut wrote:
| "Open dialog" and "intentionally lying or misleading for
| political purposes" are in direct opposition. The latter
| kills former.
|
| I am not saying censorship is answer necessary, but I am
| saying we should stop pretending the discussion has
| anything to do with open dialog or "adding information".
| aeternum wrote:
| > Isn't the point that he should stop providing a platform to
| people who deny <x>
|
| No, people should listen and decide for themselves. By
| denying a platform, you often feed conspiracy theories and
| fringe ideas. This must be a powerful, true, and dangerous
| idea if so many people are trying to hide it.
|
| Instead focus the discussion on how we experimentally
| determine which idea is more true. Ask people and consider
| yourself what it would take to disprove some of the things
| you believe to be true.
| teachrdan wrote:
| > Ask people and consider yourself what it would take to
| disprove some of the things you believe to be true.
|
| Sure. If the past 7 years had been the coldest on record,
| I'd be a lot more skeptical of the consensus theory of
| climate change. Instead, they were the hottest on
| record.[0] And yet Joe Rogan lets Jordan Peterson, a
| clinical psychologist (!), go one his show and claim that
| the theory of climate change is a fraud because: "Your
| models are based on a set number of variables. So that
| means you've reduced the variables -- which are everything
| -- to that set. But how did you decide which set of
| variables to include in the equation if it's about
| everything?"[1]
|
| > By denying a platform, you often feed conspiracy theories
| and fringe ideas. This must be a powerful, true, and
| dangerous idea if so many people are trying to hide it.
|
| It's not clear to me if you personally believe this
| statement or if it's a reference to irrational
| conspiratorial thinking. But we deny platforms all the
| time. You won't find Holocaust deniers getting equal time
| in a history textbook. You similarly won't find flat
| Earthers teaching geology at an accredited university. And
| when Joe Rogan got paid $100 million for having a popular
| podcast, he was incentivized to appeal to an increasingly
| irrational listener base, regardless of what the truth was.
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-
| environment/2022/01/1...
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/27/us/joe-rogan-jordan-
| peterson-...
| steelstraw wrote:
| If you watch that episode, Joe pushes back a bunch of
| times and even pulls up Google for a fact check. It's
| just that Joe is polite with his guests and that seems to
| confuse people who are used to Twitter style dunking. Is
| that what people are looking for? Should he kick off his
| guests and yell at them? Or put them on guide rails? I
| don't think so. He has friendly conversations and
| disagrees in a polite way.
|
| Also Jordan is being mischaracterized somewhat. You have
| to watch the whole explanation and ignore repackaged
| soundbites. He was (inartfully and perhaps incorrectly)
| challenging the accuracy of predictive models, which is a
| fair thing to do. It's not the end of the world. He can
| challenge it and others can present the counter argument.
|
| Plus it's important to recognize that he's on the side of
| the environment. He argues (and I agree with him) that
| the best way to improve the environment is to bring
| people out of poverty, which enables people to think and
| strategize over longer time frames, not being so focused
| on their next meal or paying the bills. I believe he is
| correct about this larger point.
| aeternum wrote:
| Personally, I lost a lot of respect for Peterson over
| that quote/interview. Clearly all models are
| simplifications, that's the entire point. We can't
| simulate reality with full fidelity, anything more than a
| hydrogen atom requires a simplification.
|
| Hearing Peterson directly say something non-sensical like
| that is an incredibly effective way to convince
| reasonable people that he is wrong. Much more effective
| than any attempt to cancel or silence him.
| feoren wrote:
| What _really_ happened during the Holocaust? Let 's call
| the truth theory A. Some people, who don't actually really
| care what happened during the Holocaust and seek to argue
| in bad faith, would love to see "equal time" be given to
| theory A and their own "theory", B. But we can take it
| further. Let's give equal time to each of theories A, B1,
| B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, ... B327 (ancient Egyptian mummies
| coming back for revenge against the Jews), B328 (an early
| prototype of their space laser malfunctioned), etc.
|
| Now A gets 1% of the time and crazy gets 99% of the time.
| Decide for yourself what's true!
| chernevik wrote:
| Good point.
|
| I think you may have meant to put "This must be a powerful,
| true, and dangerous idea if so many people are trying to
| hide it" in quotes -- to show that it might be the attitude
| of a conspiracy theorist towards efforts to hide the
| conspiracy.
| aeternum wrote:
| Yes exactly, too late to edit but thanks for the
| clarification.
| rsfayez wrote:
| > "But I think it's a bit of a red herring to focus on the
| quality of someone's apology when they continue to do harm."
|
| 1000000% agreed
| vngzs wrote:
| While I agree that the content of one's apology is largely
| irrelevant here (actions speak louder than words), the video
| makes two substantive claims about changes when controversial
| opinions about about covid-19 are presented:
|
| 1. A disclaimer at the beginning of the video will instruct
| people to consult their physician and provide a warning that
| the views expressed are "against the current consensus of
| experts."
|
| 2. When a controversial expert is interviewed, the following
| videos will feature experts who hold the mainstream
| viewpoint, serving to counterbalance the claims of a small
| minority.
|
| Time will tell if this happens, but I find the above points
| far more meaningful than any apology.
| the-dude wrote:
| Just for the record : I don't deny that COVID is a threat,
| and still I am not vaccinated and probably won't be.
|
| And it is not because I have complications, I just don't feel
| like it.
| [deleted]
| jorgesborges wrote:
| I think when you call certain people conspiracists it's
| unproductive. Who are you referring to? Sure Alex Jones is a
| nutty conspiracy theorist. But highly credentialed physicians
| and academics who simply have opinions that deviate from the
| established consensus? No, that's unfair.
|
| Did you watch the posted ten minute video? Have you watched
| any of his podcasts in full? He explains why he has those
| guests on and concedes with some gratitude the idea that he
| ought to have more guests on that can communicate the
| opposing views, especially soon after a controversial guest.
|
| The alleged harm he's perpetrating in having conversations is
| way less dangerous than a full-steam-ahead into uncritical,
| contrived, and corrupt thought control from established
| institutions and governments.
| feoren wrote:
| > But highly credentialed physicians and academics who
| simply have opinions that deviate from the established
| consensus?
|
| This is called the Halo effect: someone who is good in one
| way is surely good in all ways.
|
| If Terence Tao posted on his blog tomorrow that he has
| video proof that Hillary Clinton is a secret lizard person,
| I would certainly be shocked, and I might even read what he
| has to say, but I would still immediately classify him as a
| nutty conspiracy theorist (one who espouses a nutty
| conspiracy theory). It wouldn't really diminish everything
| else he's done, and I would view it as an incredibly sad
| case of an otherwise amazing brain getting infected by a
| particularly virulent mind-virus.
|
| Say Joe Rogan split his segment into two halves, and the
| first half was devoted to someone arguing that the 14th
| century was invented by the Illuminati in order to hide the
| fact that Finland doesn't really exist and is just a cover
| to hide the fact that Russian fishermen discovered aliens
| there, who took their bodies and are now infiltrating
| society, etc. etc. The second half was devoted to an actual
| historian saying "um, no, that's really ridiculous for many
| reasons". Would you call that fair and balanced? Is that a
| good point-counterpoint? Hell no. It's the classic false
| equivalency, fake-centrist B.S. that is used so often to
| promote crazy and dangerous ideas.
| jorgesborges wrote:
| Are you saying that lizard theory is fairly analogous to
| physicians questioning the efficacy of health protocols
| during an unprecedented global pandemic?
| Kranar wrote:
| Arguing that Clinton is a lizard is not only analogous to
| claiming that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine does not work and
| is actually harmful, it's leaps and bounds worse. At
| least the lizard position can be viewed as a kind of
| satire or metaphorically. The claims of Dr. Robert Malone
| (who was the guest on JRE) about the mRNA vaccines are
| not a form of questioning or scientific skepticism, his
| position is categorical.
| [deleted]
| Kranar wrote:
| He's been saying that for years though, from the time he
| perpetuated 9/11 being an inside job, to arguing that the moon
| landing was a hoax, to his current position on COVID. What
| exact mindset inspired by Joe Rogan would you advocate for
| people? To believe in and promote fringe opinions for the sake
| of being contrarian, and then after some degree of damage has
| been done you go ahead apologize for it, say you're going to
| work harder only until the next fringe idea comes along for you
| to capitalize off of?
|
| I don't agree that such a mindset would help accomplish much.
| steelstraw wrote:
| It doesn't sound like you're very familiar with the show
| given that Twitter-like characterization. At least watch that
| 10 minute video. The mindset in question is represented
| there.
| CharlesW wrote:
| The parent's response suggests that he's watched the show a
| lot, and probably more than you have. The Instagram video
| was vetted (and possibly written) by Spotify's legal team,
| and is not representative.
| [deleted]
| sol_invictus wrote:
| The mindset you describe is a mindset of exploration,
| adventure and tinkering. Occasionally it ends in catastrophe,
| but historically has been the driver of some of the greatest
| inventions. But such is the nature of nature; gains generally
| don't come free.
|
| Ergo, your obedient unquestioning good citizen mentality is
| far less progressive & beneficial than you think it is.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| I think the article is operating under the false assumption that
| most political discourse is meant to be a Socratic conversation.
| It's really not. Look at a political debate, or a talking heads
| show on cable news. There is no truth that is sought out, no
| hypotheses to accept, no exploration of if a conclusion follows
| the premises logically. All there is, is persuasive sound bytes,
| with no deference paid to the truth and no refraining from the
| "false opinion concerning the subjects of the present
| conversation".
|
| The media drives a lot of this with the format of their
| shows/political debates. I'm sure these sound bytes are better
| for ratings, but they are poor for getting to the bottom of a
| political platform and how that's really best for the general
| population.
| jhoechtl wrote:
| > The media drives a lot of this with the format of their
| shows/political debates. I'm sure these sound bytes are better
| for ratings, but they are poor for getting to the bottom of a
| political platform and how that's really best for the general
| population.
|
| I only developed a more informed sense to follow the political
| sphere like five years ago or so. This is so true, the media
| and their need for quotes makes so many debates into a farce.
| Politicians seem like being in front of a judge instead of a
| truth-seeking interviewer. Not that politicians are overly
| known for truth-seeking but there is a certain line between for
| a reporter being investigative and sensational.
| beebmam wrote:
| Public debate is performance for the audiences. Private debate
| can absolutely be like Socratic dialogue
| pasabagi wrote:
| I don't know what Socratic dialogues you've been reading, but
| if somebody started speaking like they were out of one near
| me, I'd probably report them for being a replicant.
| totetsu wrote:
| if holding the wrong opinion in a conversation is morally wrong,
| one ought to converse in a way that welcomes and seeks being
| refuted. I see some echoes of this in the advice about
| steelmanning friends and family who are in to conspiracies. But
| it's hard to imagine going into a conversation with say a flat
| earth theory believer and really want to be proven wrong about
| the sphere..
| goodpoint wrote:
| You cannot have a honest conversation (AKA being open to change
| your mind) while engaging in a morally unacceptable debate.
|
| Instead, refuse to have such debate. You can then explain your
| refusal.
| abecedarius wrote:
| "I won't debate you" is fine. "Anyone who does gets tainted
| by the other side's cooties" is not. There are loud people
| aggressively pushing that norm and trying to blur this
| distinction.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| Hmm, what is a morally unacceptable debate? How is it defined
| and who agrees to the definition?
|
| I've been trying very hard most of my life not to have mental
| or discussion taboos. I may find a position, request, action,
| etc disagreeable or even reprehensible, but I see no winning
| outcome in making it a taboo. And I struggle to visualize a
| debate itself that is morally unacceptable. Quite the
| opposite.
|
| (on the other hand there are certainly debates I am _tired_
| of, amd frequently ponder how to handle people / situations
| that bring same tired arguments I've seen rehashed, and
| usually debunked, myriad times before. But that's not the
| same as morally unacceptable that's just me being lazy and or
| having limited time and energy on this earth :)
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| Proposed definition of "immoral debates":
|
| An immoral debate depends on the definition of a corrupt
| debate. A corrupt debate is where:
|
| 1) debaters willfully produce responses that contain bad
| arguments or logical fallacies
|
| 2) debaters willfully conduct arguments toward an audience
| without knowledge of logical fallacies and/or without
| knowledge of critical thinking
|
| 3) debaters willfully conduct arguments in a venue or
| theater where non-logical aspects of communication could
| manipulate the behavior of others, and leverage those
| aspects in the delivery of their arguments.
|
| A corrupt debate is an immoral debate if performed where
| the debate is part of a process affecting a large number of
| people who consider themselves a society, because:
|
| 1) while those debating look like they are arguing and
| analyzing an issue, and trying to come to a logically
| correct conclusion, they are really manipulating an
| audience to effect a desired outcome,
|
| 2) if debate is the foundation of determining the direction
| of a society, corrupt debate skews it towards the will of
| specific individuals rather than objective truth.
| abecedarius wrote:
| Funny thing: I'd classify Plato's dialogs as immoral
| debates by this definition. (Admittedly that's debatable.
| You could say they're not debates at all, for instance.)
| redler wrote:
| Sounds like what the US Senate has become, unfortunately.
| vraks wrote:
| So basically an "immoral debate" would be one that's
| propaganda in disguise? But why would it be inherently
| immoral to knowingly propagandize a false idea? What if
| believing a particular false idea leads to behavior
| that's safer in large scale? For example, you convince
| everyone that, I don't know, gasoline makes you impotent.
| Your rhetoric is so good that everyone is convinced, even
| in the absence of evidence, and people stop driving so
| much and pollution is reduced.
|
| Is it immoral to use rhetoric to spread false ideas for a
| good reason?
| goodpoint wrote:
| No, that's a dishonest debate and it's a different thing.
| goodpoint wrote:
| > what is a morally unacceptable debate?
|
| I'm surprised that people here do not understand this
| point. Here some by-the-book examples that are used in
| ethics 101:
|
| "what is the best way to kill grandma?" "what is a
| reasonable price to buy a slave?"
|
| If you find murder or slavery immoral you are simply unable
| to debate on this questions because they imply acceptance
| of the premise.
|
| You can, of course, express your disagreement on the whole
| debate.
|
| > I see no winning outcome in making it a taboo
|
| This has nothing to do with a taboo. It's a completely
| different thing.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| What would you consider a morally unacceptable debate? Or is
| that question itself morally unacceptable to engage with?
| Razengan wrote:
| Oh man...
| friedman23 wrote:
| It sounds like you hold a lot of questionable moral beliefs
| that you refuse to take a hard look at.
| goodpoint wrote:
| It sounds like you are projecting.
| friedman23 wrote:
| How so? I don't have a problem with my beliefs being
| questioned or discussed.
| [deleted]
| dvt wrote:
| > if holding the wrong opinion in a conversation is morally
| wrong
|
| This is trivially answered in the negative. Arguing for sport
| is done all the time, and holding a "Devil's advocate" position
| should be done routinely to test the strength one's own
| arguments.
| newbamboo wrote:
| Which is why moral relativism is so degenerate.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| Elaborate, please?
| zalo wrote:
| Are you kidding? If someone really has good evidence for the
| Earth being flat, that could potentially be one of the most
| important observations of all time!
|
| As the Litany of Tarski goes: "If the Earth is flat, I desire
| to believe the Earth is flat..." etc.
|
| (Though, I will admit that it gets boring later when you've
| heard all the arguments and rebuttals.)
| rgrieselhuber wrote:
| I have yet to hear a FE believer explain their position
| without them raising their voice.
| cmurf wrote:
| Same for "microwaves are bad" believers. They are angry
| people. Over what, I do not know, but I think they have a
| deep fear of their own ignorance and use anger to
| compensate. Somehow they learned at a young age the winner
| of an argument is perceived as correct or smart, and the
| way to win is to wear people down. Every conversation is
| arm wrestling.
| tremon wrote:
| Here, the quote by J.S. Mill comes to the rescue:
|
| > But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the
| opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he
| has no ground for preferring either opinion
|
| This applies to flat earth theory believers as well. If they
| are unable to refute the reasons for the sphere theory, they
| have no ground for preferring either theory.
|
| There's also the part "where he must be able to hear them from
| persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest"
| and I have a hard time imagining that most conspiracy theorists
| actually believe their theories -- in my experience, most
| people cling to conspiracy theories because they're more
| convenient to them; the need to believe is stronger than the
| actual belief. But that viewpoint is exactly what Socrates was
| denouncing ;)
| my_usernam3 wrote:
| > most people cling to conspiracy theories because they're
| more convenient to them
|
| The trend I've noticed is the theories or beliefs are being
| attached to one's own identity. Once engrained, it's hard to
| ever openly view other opposing beliefs.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I find it extraordinary that in this day and age we're
| reaching levels of discourse so low level about such trivial
| ignorance. Really extraordinary, we're rediscussing (or re-
| wasting time) beliefs, truth, reality in ways I'd never think
| possible today.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-31 23:01 UTC)