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]

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.