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

[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)

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

The prerequisite is just that it's *possible* to be wrong. If it's impossible to be wrong then obviously telling someone they're wrong puts you on a hiding to nothing. I agree with the rest of what you say.

[keirf.livejournal.com]

I annoy my wife and have annoyed partners in the past by not taking a strong stand on any beliefs. I think spending four years working on a Ph.D. concerning truth and provability in mathematics has something to do with it.

Of course it's socially possible to be wrong. You may believe that philosophically it's not possible to be wrong (or right) but that's not something you have to live your life by every minute of the day.

Unless you're Wittgenstein.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

How do you feel about the example in this post?

[keirf.livejournal.com]

Not as emotional as I felt when I was standing inside the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam. But I wouldn't think it was worth having any kind of discussion with someone who genuinely believed that kind of rumour. In fact I'd probably tell them not to be such a fucking idiot and that would be the end of the conversation.

I started to type something about truth/falsity and the problems of trying to apply such terms to social concepts, but a Livejournal comment box isn't really a suitable forum for that.

[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.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Re (2), I disagree :)

Disagreement, to me, implies a matter of opinion.

You and I can disagree on whether plaid looks good with polka dots (well, likely we'd agree on that) and neither of us would be demonstrably wrong, unless the question is whether the consensus of fashion likes that combination.

If someone starts saying that it's a dry day and you're both standing in the middle of a rainstorm, saying "I disagree" may be more polite but seems to make dry or wet a matter of opinion and gives credence to his words, when he's just simply wrong.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

On a matter of taste, neither party is "right" or "wrong" as you say, unless they're talking about how good Guns'n'Roses in which case they are of course quite wrong. I like your rainstorm example - and I'd extend it to science which is so well established that seriously questioning it at this stage is just madness, like evolution. But of course there can be matters of objective fact about which no-one is certain enough to make bald assertions, so they have to be qualified, even though they may be straightforwardly right or wrong.

[adjectivegail]

Yes - this is sort of where I am as well.

I've actually been kind of interested recently in how different (but still very strong) my reactions are to "I disagree" and "you're wrong". The former will prompt intense interest from me and a keenness to find out where our differences lie and how far they extend, and so forth. The latter, to my mind, sounds judgemental and arrogant, and immediately puts my back up.

Further, if we're talking about something that I don't think there can be a 'right' answer to, or at least not a 'right' answer that we'll ever find out (and I'd put who shot JFK into this category, as opposed to e.g. is the earth round), it will get my temper up faster than you could wave a red flag at a bull!

[henry_the_cow]

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

I think I'm beginning to see the problem. Is the following right? Alice believes (i) something Bob believes is wrong and (ii) it is acceptable or desirable to tell him so. Bob believes (iii) there are no grounds on which Bob's belief can be proven wrong and (iv) it is unacceptable to try to convince someone that their belief in this matter is wrong. How can Alice justify telling Bob that he is wrong?

Presumably an extreme po-mo version of Bob would contend that (iii) and (iv) hold for any beliefs. A religious version of Bob might apply (iii) and (iv) to a more limited set of beliefs (depending on the degree that Bob is religious).

Or am I missing the point wildly?

[djm4]

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

Sorry? You think 'you're definitely wrong', 'I disagree' and 'that seems unlikely because...' all mean the same thing?

Just double-checking because (a) that explains a lot and (b) I don't think they all mean the same thing, but if you've been hearing 'you're definitely wrong' when I've said 'I disagree', I'm going to have to express myself very differently in future to avoid confusion.

For the record, I see the distinction (and use the phrases) roughly as follows:

'You're definitely wrong': you've got your facts wrong, as I understand them. For example 'you're definitely wrong that that bird we both saw was a Linnet, it was a Meadow Pipit', or 'you're definitely wrong that the square root of two is a rational number'.

'I disagree': I believe you're wrong, and I'm confident enough to say so, but this may not be on a matter of fact, nor one on which I'm sure of my facts - it can be a balance of probabilities thing. It can also be one where it's a difference in point of view, often where there's contradictory evidence, or an axiomatic principle. For example: 'I disagree that obesity is the health risk it's popularly supposed to be' or 'I disagree that it's better to be safe than to be free'.

'That seems unlikely because...': I agree that I'll sometimes use that wording as a form of ... litotes? ... where I basically mean 'If you believe that you're batshit insane'. But I'll also use it where I'm aware that the other person could be correct, but only under conditions I think are unlikely. For example 'It seems unlikely that your processor has fried, because most errors of that sort are caused by duff memory' or 'It seems unlikely that Liverpool will win the league, because Man U would have to lose all their remaining matches, and they're on a winning streak at the moment'.

[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.

[lovingboth]

Some things like that will always be up for debate. The causes of the First World War is another good example (in a way that 'the First World War happened' isn't) and anyone who writes on it needs to acknowledge that, in the manner of the BBC advertising its own products, 'other explanations exist'.

What pissed me off immensely at THT was that some people were not open to a discussion about some things. I don't mind people being wrong - I am sometimes - but I do mind them objecting to being challenged about their work in any way.

(Curiously, the blunter approach was the one that got a couple of meetings to happen.)

(Catching up)

[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...