I can't see how the model I described suggests that debates can't be productive, or that one of the participants can't be persuaded.
Specifically, the short version answer to your question is because "opinions" can be ill-informed. You've designed a scenario whereby a discussion is taking place where one person is "correct" and the other isn't and you're saying that they're both right as a result of belief in knowledge that is subjective.
Werrick on
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. If their views are logically incompatible, then one of them must have an opinion that is wrong and does not reflect reality in the way he thinks it does. One must be objectively right and the other must be objectively wrong. All I'm saying is that, in practice, the experience of believing something and knowing it is the same; you have total certainty that you are correct until something or someone convinces you otherwise.
It's fine for us to say that a person who believed the bridge was sturdy, and later discovered that it wasn't, never really knew the bridge was sturdy; that's a semantic adjustment we can make after the fact, from a better-educated position. But it really isn't anything more than that. It doesn't change any quality of that person's action or experience in deciding that the bridge was sturdy; he thought it was, based on a justification he found satisfying.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. If their views are logically incompatible, then one of them must have an opinion that is wrong and does not reflect reality in the way he thinks it does. One must be objectively right and the other must be objectively wrong. All I'm saying is that, in practice, the experience of believing something and knowing it is the same; you have total certainty that you are correct until something or someone convinces you otherwise.
Right, and then that person realizes that they were wrong the whole time and that belief they had was not true and could therefore not be considered "knowledge" in the strictest sense.
Werrick on
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
And of course he can also come to that realization in error; he can start with the objectively correct position and be led astray. He believes something new, and that new thing is inaccurate, or less accurate than his previous position. Not knowing this, he feels just as certain of his new knowledge as he would if it were objectively correct; he experiences it as knowledge; as far as he can tell, he arrived at it through the same process that one uses to gain knowledge.
We can say that one is belief and one is knowledge, but all that expresses is our own judgment of which position is correct, and so it's only as good as our judgment. If our judgment is really good, and it might be, then there's a good chance we're right. But there's lots of ways of saying that one position is right and another is wrong. Calling one belief and the other knowledge is probably not the best way, because it implies that we can identify a useful difference between the two perceptive processes when in fact we can't.
And of course he can also come to that realization in error; he can start with the objectively correct position and be led astray. He believes something new, and that new thing is inaccurate, or less accurate than his previous position. Not knowing this, he feels just as certain of his new knowledge as he would if it were objectively correct; he experiences it as knowledge; as far as he can tell, he arrived at it through the same process that one uses to gain knowledge.
We can say that one is belief and one is knowledge, but all that expresses is our own judgment of which position is correct, and so it's only as good as our judgment. If our judgment is really good, and it might be, then there's a good chance we're right. But there's lots of ways of saying that one position is right and another is wrong. Calling one belief and the other knowledge is probably not the best way, because it implies that we can identify a useful difference between the two perceptive processes when in fact we can't.
Unfortunately for Descartes he ran into what's known as the "Mind/Body Problem" whereas he tried to work out how a "Thinking Substance" could affect an "Extended Substance". In other words, how the mind moves the body. At that point in time the science of the time was Mechanism, the concept of inertia and momentum, that no body was capable of movement without influence of another body. In order to solve this problem he used "God".
He was a visionary.
He is the father of modern thought.
He is the father of rationalism.
Now, in this day and age, would you consider his "Mind/body problem" to be a significant issue, given neurosciences, psychology and linguistics? Descartes contributed entire boat-loads to modern philosophy, but he was wrong because science and religion weren't seperate and so you coudn't have "Man" without "God" because he didn't know that the science of mechanism was wrong.
Werrick on
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be rude without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
I don't think I get you. We know more now than Descartes did then. Are you saying that our better knowledge of the human nervous system alters the quality and/or character of his thought process retroactively? Columbus thought he was in India. He was wrong, and we know that now. Does that mean the perceptive action he took in deciding he was in India was somehow different than if he'd been right?
Posts
Specifically, the short version answer to your question is because "opinions" can be ill-informed. You've designed a scenario whereby a discussion is taking place where one person is "correct" and the other isn't and you're saying that they're both right as a result of belief in knowledge that is subjective.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
It's fine for us to say that a person who believed the bridge was sturdy, and later discovered that it wasn't, never really knew the bridge was sturdy; that's a semantic adjustment we can make after the fact, from a better-educated position. But it really isn't anything more than that. It doesn't change any quality of that person's action or experience in deciding that the bridge was sturdy; he thought it was, based on a justification he found satisfying.
Right, and then that person realizes that they were wrong the whole time and that belief they had was not true and could therefore not be considered "knowledge" in the strictest sense.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
We can say that one is belief and one is knowledge, but all that expresses is our own judgment of which position is correct, and so it's only as good as our judgment. If our judgment is really good, and it might be, then there's a good chance we're right. But there's lots of ways of saying that one position is right and another is wrong. Calling one belief and the other knowledge is probably not the best way, because it implies that we can identify a useful difference between the two perceptive processes when in fact we can't.
That's all I'm really saying.
In 1641(ish) Renée Descartes wrote the Meditations. The short story is "I think, I am", the contribution of the epistemelogical argument, the ontological argument, the causal adequacy principle, the trademark argument and the concept of rationalism in general.
Unfortunately for Descartes he ran into what's known as the "Mind/Body Problem" whereas he tried to work out how a "Thinking Substance" could affect an "Extended Substance". In other words, how the mind moves the body. At that point in time the science of the time was Mechanism, the concept of inertia and momentum, that no body was capable of movement without influence of another body. In order to solve this problem he used "God".
He was a visionary.
He is the father of modern thought.
He is the father of rationalism.
Now, in this day and age, would you consider his "Mind/body problem" to be a significant issue, given neurosciences, psychology and linguistics? Descartes contributed entire boat-loads to modern philosophy, but he was wrong because science and religion weren't seperate and so you coudn't have "Man" without "God" because he didn't know that the science of mechanism was wrong.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
But he was still wrong.
-Robert E. Howard
Tower of the Elephant
You are quickly becoming my favorite forumer.
Prime candidate for "Famous though unrecognised pseudo-problem".