Suppose that you are having a conversation about “what it feels like when your worldview is shattered.” Your interlocutor is a fellow rationalist and mentions that they read a book promoting climate denial and describes to you what it felt like to almost have their worldview shattered by a professional motivated-skeptic and evidence-cherrypicker. They explain how difficult it is for us mere mortals to notice this black magic being applied to our minds and how easy it is to be deceived by a professional charlatan.
To add to this discussion, you contribute the idea that this feeling is similar going the other way. For example, a profoundly religious person reading a science book on biological evolution will feel similar to how you—a rigorous rationalist—felt reading a book promoting climate denial, anti-vax, or some other pseudoscientific theory.
Both of you agree that evolution is a widely accepted theory with plenty of evidence going for it. Still, your interlocutor decides that they want to show you how much they know about the philosophy of science, so they say, “Playing devil’s advocate, evolution is still just a theory.” In the back of your mind, you would like to stay on topic, but rationalist verve takes over you, and you engage with all your heart in a fraught debate.
Now, suddenly, you find yourself debating the truth of biological evolution. You’re both embroiled in the weeds of the philosophy of science, and other participants in the conversation are becoming visibly uninterested. You are no longer talking about “what it feels like when your worldview is shattered.”
The theme is “What it feels like when your worldview is shattered”. At least, that is the expressed subject of the conversation. Because in the first example, your interlocutor said their worldview was almost shattered. So isn’t it more accurate to say the the subject-matter of the conversation is something like “What it feels like having your worldview threatened/pressured/almost shattered”?
So you start off by past experiences and general examples, in the second paragraph. In the third, as the conversation progresses, and you want to go deeper—you (In line with the Theme) explore in an actual conversation in the present what it feels like to have your worldview threatened/pressured/almost shattered. At which point you comment that you would like to stay on topic—Which I find odd, as that is exactly what you are doing. You are exploring what it feels like to have your worldview threatened/pressured/ in real time—with on person playing the devils’s advocate.
In the fourth paragraf you are trying to mimic pressure by acting out a seemingly scary thematic—namely having your worldview shattered. And if you described what you felt in that exact moment, as this was going on, it would contribute to the theme as far as I can see. On the way to having your worldview shattered, you will just argue and feel (safe, irritated, frustrated, passiv, etc)
At which point, if someone came into the conversation and could actually ‘prove’ that biological evolution is wrong, and the person was very convincing (Maybe some of the others listening hired a profession to do the job), and you both felt your grip on reality slipping—that would have been another exploration into “What it feels like to have your worldview shattered”.
So in the third paragraph I see an opening to talk about actual feelings, in the here and now, with regards to the theme of the conversation, but without the threat of your worldview shattering as your fellow is playing the devils advocate—not actually being one. At least that is what it looks like from here. So wouldn’t that be interesting to do? Instead it turns into a debate, and the weeds of philosphy—but what if you had stayed on track, what it feels like? I am curious about that.
The theme is “What it feels like when your worldview is shattered”. At least, that is the expressed subject of the conversation. Because in the first example, your interlocutor said their worldview was almost shattered. So isn’t it more accurate to say the the subject-matter of the conversation is something like “What it feels like having your worldview threatened/pressured/almost shattered”?
So you start off by past experiences and general examples, in the second paragraph. In the third, as the conversation progresses, and you want to go deeper—you (In line with the Theme) explore in an actual conversation in the present what it feels like to have your worldview threatened/pressured/almost shattered.
At which point you comment that you would like to stay on topic—Which I find odd, as that is exactly what you are doing. You are exploring what it feels like to have your worldview threatened/pressured/ in real time—with on person playing the devils’s advocate.
In the fourth paragraf you are trying to mimic pressure by acting out a seemingly scary thematic—namely having your worldview shattered. And if you described what you felt in that exact moment, as this was going on, it would contribute to the theme as far as I can see. On the way to having your worldview shattered, you will just argue and feel (safe, irritated, frustrated, passiv, etc)
At which point, if someone came into the conversation and could actually ‘prove’ that biological evolution is wrong, and the person was very convincing (Maybe some of the others listening hired a profession to do the job), and you both felt your grip on reality slipping—that would have been another exploration into “What it feels like to have your worldview shattered”.
So in the third paragraph I see an opening to talk about actual feelings, in the here and now, with regards to the theme of the conversation, but without the threat of your worldview shattering as your fellow is playing the devils advocate—not actually being one. At least that is what it looks like from here. So wouldn’t that be interesting to do? Instead it turns into a debate, and the weeds of philosphy—but what if you had stayed on track, what it feels like? I am curious about that.