Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)
- From: The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson <craigBLOCK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:52:44 -0000
millerjamesc@xxxxxxx wrote:
> The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson wrote:
<snip>
>>Is there an implication that apologists are not open to new truth?
>
> There seems to me to be a knee-jerk reaction from BOTH sides of the
> aisle to claims from the opposing side. My question was aimed at
> clarifying if both sides were to be kept to the same standards or if
> this specific standard was to be applied only to critics.
Yeah, I think we agree in practice. What I see (from my limited
perspective) is that acceptance of truth from a divergent viewpoint
seems to be a matter more of personality rather than position.
Some apologists have knee-jerk reactions to things they don't believe;
some critics do the same. It is as if they are wearing an
insight-deflecting personal force field that prevents them from ever
getting close enough to an opposing argument to weigh or consider it as
anything other than fodder for dismissive refutation.
Others, on both sides, have varying abilities to see, evaluate and
consider the opposing argument. The continuum of these abilities runs
from just slightly to one side of the force field deflectors to a
near-mind-melding level of "groking" the other side.
[Note: I also see the "critic" and "apologist" roles as a continuum,
with a middle ground where one can be both and neither at the same
time. But then I sort of reject binary as a decent number system for
human interactions, anyway.]
Personally, I find little value in attempting meaningful discussion
about beliefs or views with personalities who exist within
insight-deflecting force fields. It is, rather, like arguing in the
mirror, with none of the appealing aspects or benefits of that process.
Craig, able to mix SF metaphors in a single bound
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)
- From: joseph_daniel_zukiger
- Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)
- From: millerjamesc
- Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)
- References:
- faith, and induction as an argument
- From: joseph_daniel_zukiger
- Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)
- From: Gazelem
- Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)
- From: millerjamesc
- Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)
- From: The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson
- Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)
- From: millerjamesc
- faith, and induction as an argument
- Prev by Date: Re: [Admin] Welcoming a new moderator
- Next by Date: Re: the LDS Church explains the Law of the Sabbath
- Previous by thread: Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)
- Next by thread: Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|