In the pursuit of truth it is rational to argue and, at first glance, irrational to agree. The culling of truth proceeds by “leaving be” the material that is correct and modifying (arguing with) the part that is not. (While slightly tangential, it is good to recall that the scientific method can only argue with a hypothesis; never confirm it.)
At a conference where there is a dialogue it is a waste of time to agree, as a lack of argument is already implicit agreement. After the conference, however, the culling of truth further progresses by assimilating and disseminating the correct material. So while it may not be rational to go to the mike and say, “I agree, you are brilliant”, it is a form of true agreement to tell other people that they were brilliant.
Nevertheless, we’re human beings, and by that I mean we’re not entirely rational in the sense of a deterministic computational machine. We care about our interaction with our community, and in this sense it is rational to give encouragement.
In the pursuit of truth it is rational to argue and, at first glance, irrational to agree. The culling of truth proceeds by “leaving be” the material that is correct and modifying (arguing with) the part that is not. (While slightly tangential, it is good to recall that the scientific method can only argue with a hypothesis; never confirm it.)
At a conference where there is a dialogue it is a waste of time to agree, as a lack of argument is already implicit agreement. After the conference, however, the culling of truth further progresses by assimilating and disseminating the correct material. So while it may not be rational to go to the mike and say, “I agree, you are brilliant”, it is a form of true agreement to tell other people that they were brilliant.
Nevertheless, we’re human beings, and by that I mean we’re not entirely rational in the sense of a deterministic computational machine. We care about our interaction with our community, and in this sense it is rational to give encouragement.