Truth, strike two

[ciphergoth]

Thanks for some interesting and surprising responses to the JFK question. At the risk of creating more heat than light, let me try another example, one that I think might be a little less comfortable to be neutral about.

It seems that many people believe that on the morning of September 11, 2001, four thousand or more Israelis who were working at the World Trade Center did not show up for work.

Are those people wrong?

(Update: amended as per ajva's caveat)

Comments

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

Just out of curiosity, what are these entries designed to achieve?

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to work out how best to defend the proposition that some people are sometimes wrong and it's OK to tell them so.

[djm4]

Well, for starters, decouple that into two separate propositions.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

OK: I'm trying to work out how best to defend the propositions that (1) some people are sometimes wrong and (2) it's sometimes OK to tell them so.

Currently it's the first I'm having trouble with; I feel if I could get that well established I'd be able to make a start on the second.

[wildeabandon.livejournal.com]

I can't help but think that the defence of (2) is independent of (1) and runs "dinner parties would be really dull otherwise".

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Heh :-) although to turn a serious point on a tongue-in-cheek comment, I also worry that people sometimes seem to have opinions as a thing to show off at dinner parties - that they have something to say about X rather than that they actually think something about X even when they're not at a dinner party. I've called this "opinions as stamp collections" in the past; Dennett calls it "believing in belief".

To a certain extent I think that's something we all do, but I try to make the distinction clear in conversation; if that's what I'm doing, I'll tend to preface my remarks with something like "I'm often tempted to think that..." or some such disclaimer.

[djm4]

Fair enough. (It wasn't a snark, by the way, and I hope it didn't come across as one - I was genuinely trying to be helpful.)

I feel if I could get that well established I'd be able to make a start on the second.

I think you're mistaken. I suspect (from knowing some of the things you'd like to feel justified in telling people they're wrong about) that you'll be able to show (1) for a high degree of certainly about some things, but that they often won't in general be the things you'd like (2) to apply to. That's certainly my experience - sometimes, I just have to accept that I'm telling people they're wrong without the safety net of absolute certainty, or else I have to agree to differ.

None of which should be taken to mean that I think it's a bad thing to try to establish the truth as best I can in most situations, especially if I'm about to tell someone that they're wrong (whether it's 'definitely' wrong or 'overheard conversation' wrong).

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Oops, yes, I had thought it was a mild snark, sorry and sorry to be snarky in response.

You might be right, but the discussion of which things it's OK to contradict can't start until I've established that there's at least one occasion on which it's OK.

[wildeabandon.livejournal.com]

Although my first comment was slightly tongue in cheek, I'm still not quite sure why "some people are sometimes wrong" is a pre-requisite for "it's okay to tell them so". Apart from anything else, it assumes that it's only okay to tell people that they're wrong if you're right that they're wrong, and actually, I think when two people disagree it's okay for both of them to tell the other that they're wrong, because we (and they) don't know which of them is wrong until a consensus is reached (and possibly not even then, but at that point we have stronger evidence for which view is correct)

[djm4]

Whether or not I think it's OK to contradict someone has very little to do with whether or not I can prove that they're wrong (I accept, based on what you write here, that it's different for you).

I will tell someone they're wrong for non-consensually harming someone else. (I will also tell them that they're wrong if they try to stop consensual harm, as it happens.) I can't prove that it's wrong, but I feel that it is with sufficient force that I will act on that feeling.

[henry_the_cow]

You're wrong to worry about it; just get stuck in ;-)

More seriously, it seems obvious to me that most of us are wrong much of the time about many things. Do you disagree?

Re (2), is your concern whether to say, "You're definitely wrong", as opposed to, "I disagree", or, "That seems unlikely because..."?

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

You can only get stuck in if the people you disagree with believe that a disagreement can have substance at all.

it seems obvious to me that most of us are wrong much of the time about many things. Do you disagree?

I think that has to be true, but I think it's overwhelmed by the number of things that we're right about and we don't even notice, down to things like we're right that turning the handle will open the door and turning the kettle on will boil the water.

Re (2), I think they all mean the same thing.

[some-fox.livejournal.com]

Thinking about this a lot (still with ouchy brain) I think that the problem is that (1) is on a long continuum depending on the kind of thing we're talking about. There are probably some things in the world which there are clear correct and incorrect views on. There are also things where there are probably correct and incorrect views but it is extremely hard to verify which is correct or incorrect (without time machines, telepathy or other things we haven't invented yet). There are things which are a matter of personal truth (one person's lived experience being very different to anothers). And there are things where there is no real truth but it depends on your perspective (social/cultural/historically constructed things). There are probably also some quite fuzzy boundaries between these different categories (and perhaps further categories I haven't thought of). Also quite frequently when it comes to human behaviour I think the question of whether something is useful or not useful may be more useful (in itself) than whether it is correct or incorrect.

Keeping this in mind I would approach (2) with caution. Personally speaking I would appreciate people challenging me if they felt what I believed was wrong, and certainly if they felt what I believed wasn't useful. However I find that telling people that they are wrong Incredibly Seldom results in any kind of positive outcome. Often it makes them cling much more strongly to their belief. Frequently it belittles them and makes them feel stupid, decreasing their self confidence. It may well result in them engaging even less in critical thought.

What I try to do in my counselling, teaching and in general really (with more or less success!) is to get people engaging critically themselves with their beliefs and opinions. I think it is more powerful and empowering generally to encourage people to take the space to challenge their own ideas.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

This all makes sense; there's another category for things like "the causes of the Great Depression" where even a time machine, telepathy etc don't suffice to settle all arguments, but some explanations can I think still be wrong. I wouldn't use the phrase "personal truth" myself because I tend to reserve the word "truth" for the things that are not personal in that way.

I agree that bluntly telling people they're wrong is often not the most persuasive way forward, though I think there are exceptions. However, Whether or not it is effective evangelism is a separate question from whether it can have a sound philosophical foundation, and it's only the latter I want to establish here.

[jhg.livejournal.com]

Agreed - asking pertinent questions makes people re-examine their beliefs a lot better.

It's finding the, ah, 'right' questions to ask that's the trick...

[mskala.livejournal.com]

I think (1) is trivially true and I don't think you need to prove it further.

(2) is harder. It reminds me of some of the stuff tongodeon has been struggling with in some of his recent postings (http://tongodeon.livejournal.com/tag/science) - and it doesn't help that his friendslist consists mostly of people who agree with or at least respect him, so he doesn't get much feedback on why his approach isn't convincing to people who don't.

One trap that must be avoided: Even though it is true that "sometimes it is OK to tell [people who are wrong] so." that doesn't mean that "it is always OK to tell them so." It's very easy if you're sure you are right, to neglect that distinction.

Another trap: If you think that someone is stupid - which is different from wrong - then it will be impossible for you to convince them of anything. It doesn't matter whether you say "you're stupid," or say something polite that they are too stupid to understand translates as "you're stupid," or don't say it at all. When you think someone is stupid, then you have put your own brain into a mode incompatible with performing the computations necessary for forming a convincing argument.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Not everyone agrees on (1); see my previous post. On (2), see my reply to some_fox.

[purplerabbits.livejournal.com]

When you think someone is stupid, then you have put your own brain into a mode incompatible with performing the computations necessary for forming a convincing argument.


Thank you for expressing that so clearly. I think I do mostly agree with you, even though it's an error I fall into sometimes, and am tempted to fall into more often...

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

I suppose it's a balance between etiquette and preventing harm. One or the other of your original people is likely mistaken, but the harm of believing in someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald is relatively low compared to the harm of believing (and repeating) a concept that Israel was complicit in 9/11.

Much as Americans are thought to be rude, flat out saying, "you're wrong" is unusual in polite company here.

(I consider this unfortunate. But every time I return a forward from one of my dad's friends by linking back to the snopes entry I'm doing something somewhat rude, particularly if I do a reply-to-all, which is required to keep it from propagating. So it becomes a bit of a calculation - no, the shark pictures aren't from a shark that got saved from a net, but does that really matter? But "ZOMG Avoid X product because of Y mistaken awfulness" is something I'm going to correct.)

[adjectivegail]

Yes, I've had this dilemma as well. My boss at a previous workplace sent forwarded an email to all the women in the office, about that old chestnut that tampons contain asbestos to make women bleed more. Now, she was my boss so I really didn't want to show her up and embarrass her. But on the other hand I really didn't want the majority of our large and predominantly female workforce to suddenly worry about a product that presumably a fairly large proportion had been using most months for several years if not decades!

Now that I think about it, it ocurs to me that what I could have done is replied to all and then taken out the boss' email address, and then replied to the boss separately...

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Hm. That could still be somewhat dangerous. Do you mean to reply to everyone except the boss, and separately reply to the boss? Still ends up showing up the boss :( Pehraps responding to the boss in as gentle a manner of possible, but then of course that's trusting that the boss will later correct.

That is a hard situation.

[adjectivegail]

Ah, yes, I did mean that and you've pointed out a rather obvious flaw! I was thinking that in that particular workplace people didn't really talk about their emails, even if they'd just sent/received emails to each other and then met in the kitchen, unless it was about work. So they probably wouldn't have mentioned it to her - except it would've only needed one of them to do so for me to have created a bit of a faux pas.

At the time I did send a global email and restricted my comment to the URL and something like "Snopes is an authoritative source on urban legends and says we don't need to worry". I figured the more words I let myself use, the more likely I was going to say something embarrassing or patronising or something.

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

Yes, I've encountered this - including one particularly nasty one about the South African police closing down their rape/child abuse department. Very quickly Snopes-able, turned out to be absolute rubbish and probably actually created originally by child abusers themselves to defame the department in question.

Emailed the person back and told them it was nonsense and to check their facts before forwarding chain mails on, and included all the relevant links to Snopes and the SA police website. She threw a fit, started going on about "I was sent this by a well-respected person, I was forwarding it in good faith" - as if 'in good faith' was the same as being factually correct.

[reddragdiva]

I'd say that anyone with this level of batshit is beyond being told anything whatsoever.

[reddragdiva]

And for a more specific case, when someone arguing for religion against sceptical atheism tried arguing in all serious that logic (as in, simple syllogisms working) was "just another belief system." At this point words stop working and the appropriate answer is to nod and smile, or perhaps split their skull open with a shovel. Because such statements make a nonsense of thought, language and communication and should not be tolerated except from human punching bags for working off surplus aggression.