252
« on: April 11, 2012, 01:44:14 am »
I mostly just want to get this off my chest. Probably not very important overall.
I've been taking part in some discussion activities here at college lately, mostly for the free food, but when I do participate actively in any kind of discussion I find it always goes the same way, if I don't pull myself out sooner. I listen to however many sides to the issue there are, and try to work out the fundamental differences between them. For example, let's say we're talking about how the rise of the internet has affected people's ability to learn things. Simplified, the side that says it is a 'bad' influence is using the premise that easy access to information makes people value information less, and thus learn less things themselves and so on, making people generally stupider overall, while the other side says that the only significant difference between using google to look up facts and searching through a textbook is that the former takes less time, and if you don't care enough about the information to learn it then taking the extra time won't make you care any more.
When I get to this point, I think to myself, okay, so this discussion is basically a bunch of people saying back and forth, 'A is the case!', 'No, A is not the case!', 'No, I say A is the case!' with a bunch of logic strapped on. Since the two sides are using two different premises to base their arguments on, there is no possibility for reconciliation or that either side will convince the other of its correctness. Therefore, to continue the debate past the point where either these premises or a flaw in one side's logic is found is pointless until the validity of the premises is considered.
Now, everyone I've ever spoken to about this says that I'm completely wrong and am thinking about everything in absolutely the wrong way. There's nothing wrong with that yet. Please bear with me for a moment though.
Now, part of the problem in discussing such premises is that most of the time there is either insufficient data available to determine which, if either, is correct if the premises are factual statements, and if they are opinions then by definition they are equally valid, and so in either case further discussion is pointless without new information. This leads me to ask what purpose there is to continue the discussion past this point. I always get the same response, which is that the point is to listen to different opinions.
However, if all opinions are equally valid, which they are by definition, then it doesn't matter what opinion you have, and doesn't matter what opinion anyone else has. It's all fine no matter what. So therefore, the only purpose of a discussion beyond entertainment (or political purposes, which I'm ignoring) is to determine which premises are 'worse' than the other premises, by virtue of being incorrect (1 + 1 = 3) or by having alternatives which end with a 'better' solution ('carrying both socks over to the stockpile at once is the best way to get them there' rather than 'carrying each sock over to the stockpile one at a time is the best way to get them there'). I admit this second category is a little fuzzily defined, and depends on how you interpret 'good'.
At about this point, whoever I'm discussing this with says that my logic is completely wrong on every level. I most often hear a variation on the line 'your problem is that you're trying to divide everything into black and white, and real life isn't that simple,' in a patient, condescending tone. I point out that what I am saying is that statements are either true/false, or factual (the sky is blue) or not true/false, or opinions (blue is a nice color). They then say that that is not what I am doing, and that there are many things which don't fit into those categories. At this point the discussion has usually degenerated into a shouting match, and I have never actually heard an example of a statement which is neither opinion nor factual, but that's a bit beside the point.
I am arguing that things are either true/false or not true/false. The response to this is universally, 'you're wrong'.
They are saying that I am definitely, unarguably wrong in my statement that things can be definitely unarguably wrong.
I've tried pointing out the irony of this, but hey, I'm wrong, what do I know.
But seriously. Does anyone even have a clue what I'm saying here? I'm not sure I do anymore. I guess I'm just stupid or something.
