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]

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'.