Timeline for Doubts about common sense through recourse to an alleged authority
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 22 at 16:28 | answer | added | Idiosyncratic Soul | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 22 at 0:19 | answer | added | g s | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 21 at 21:46 | answer | added | Chris Sunami | timeline score: 3 | |
| Feb 21 at 18:26 | comment | added | Idiosyncratic Soul | I believe Descartes touches on this topic: Arguments from doubt and Methodic Doubt. people.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/descar1.html | |
| Feb 21 at 17:42 | comment | added | granular_bastard | I restated the last sentence of the OP. Does it make now sense? | |
| Feb 21 at 17:41 | history | edited | granular_bastard | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 32 characters in body
|
| Feb 21 at 17:31 | comment | added | Julio Di Egidio | But I am genuinely not sure what you are asking: the dialog and some other things you say hint at the problem with argument by authority, on the other hand other things you say eventually have to do with what scepticism is about and how we "deal with that". (I do not think we should delete these comments unless I do end up writing an answer: which at the moment I cannot.) | |
| Feb 21 at 17:26 | comment | added | granular_bastard | @JulioDiEgidio You could post your way of debunking as an answer and delete the comments (I'll delete my also) for better overview. | |
| Feb 21 at 17:18 | comment | added | Julio Di Egidio | And how is "only experts can tell you why (and I am not one of them)" substantially different from "I cannot tell you why"? I'd say it isn't. My suggestion is that you should re-think the dialog to begin with, as that B at the moment is just too easy to debunk (the objection is simply invalid), indeed regardless of what A said. -- I won't insist (meant in the good sense: if my point does not get across, that's part of the game). | |
| Feb 21 at 17:11 | comment | added | granular_bastard |
@JulioDiEgidio Here we do not have the case you are wrong but I cannot tell you why, but There are doubts, but only an expert can tell you what these doubts are.
|
|
| Feb 21 at 17:00 | comment | added | Julio Di Egidio | @granular_bastard If B makes a claim (an objection here, i.e. a claim to the effect that not something), whether B is an authority in the matter or not, B has to provide support for the claim, any claim, or the claim is simply void (so, invalid), as in "you are wrong but I cannot tell you why". | |
| Feb 21 at 16:55 | comment | added | SystemTheory | @Julio Di Egidio I advocate acceptance in the dramatic context where person B is appealing to abstract authority on the origin of their own doubt! Argue further with person B then it means I want something other than acceptance of their doubt on the matter that I consider common sense. Even if one engages in further argument with person B, either in private or a public forum witnessed by persons C, then I must realize that individual persons interpret my words according to their unique individual cognitive filters. Psychological transparency means exposing my reasoning for others to process. | |
| Feb 21 at 16:42 | comment | added | granular_bastard | @JulioDiEgidio I cannot follow your point or do not understand it. It is an essential point that B believes that there are other variants. However B cannot name them as B is not an authority (cosmologist). However B assumes that an authority could name them. | |
| Feb 21 at 16:35 | comment | added | Julio Di Egidio | @SystemTheory Methodological doubt is already Socratic, but I'd agree that Scepticism in essence can be characterised as casting doubts on, if not altogether denying the possibility itself of reasonable understanding and agreement. But "acceptance" (that we are so "doomed" not to even be able to reason really: otherwise what "acceptance" do you mean?) is the weakest possible answer, not the only answer... | |
| Feb 21 at 16:23 | comment | added | SystemTheory | What do you call this kind of inducing doubt? Skepticism. How do you deal with such strategies? Acceptance. In the context of Men's peer counselling my friend began as a peer, then studied psychology, then became a self-appointed authority on reading my mind! In this context my friend says, "One day I am going to die - but not today." My thought: "Here and now I must die!" My other thought: "How do you know that you won't step off a curb in New York City and get hit by a bus today?" The point is I am both skeptic and witness to common sense. I can only think what I think the others think. | |
| Feb 21 at 16:22 | comment | added | Julio Di Egidio | Now, as I read it, you should also drop that "There are other variants" (which rather is an invalid claim as soon as we discover B knows nothing about that), and then, for an informal notion of "variant" that is more like saying "it might just not: how do you know??" (casting doubt), I do think you have, if not a totally clean (could be simplified further), at least a valid/meaningful question overall... I'd think. | |
| Feb 21 at 16:12 | history | edited | granular_bastard | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Feb 21 at 16:09 | comment | added | Julio Di Egidio | Either the initial question is "do you deny that for sure [so and so]", or the answer should be "no, I just say we do not know for sure". Otherwise that answer just makes no sense... And I think it is important that you fix that dialog, as I think in that lies already the germ of an answer to your question(s). | |
| Feb 21 at 16:02 | history | edited | granular_bastard | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 20 characters in body
|
| Feb 21 at 15:52 | history | edited | granular_bastard | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 139 characters in body
|
| Feb 21 at 15:42 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | "someone says that..." is not a "valid" move in an argument. | |
| S Feb 21 at 15:37 | review | First questions | |||
| Feb 22 at 0:26 | |||||
| S Feb 21 at 15:37 | history | asked | granular_bastard | CC BY-SA 4.0 |