I think there’s a higher level than the level of facts: the meta-conversation. You know, the stuff we do here. I can now basically win almost all philosophical or political debates (at least with people in their early 20′s, I could use a bigger sample set of people to debate) by taking the conversation meta. I get us to settle on definitions, find out what we disagree on, analyze the thought patterns that lead us to that disagreement, dissolve the question as necessary, and usually find out that we don’t disagree as much as we thought we did. For example, I find that most political debates can be reunderstood in terms of pragmatism vs. idealism. If you do it right, it doesn’t even feel like an argument—you shouldn’t be triggering an emotional reaction from the other side.
I haven’t won that style of conversation yet with a real live anti-reductionist though. My one encounter with an anti-reductionist in the last several months ended with him contradicting himself and then changing the subject.
If you have a conversation with someone, during which you discover a previously held belief you had was wrong, and revise your belief, have you “lost”?
I was being overly dramatic with the win/lose terminology. In those I have conversed with , I have caused a change in belief of greater magnitude than the typical belief change resulting from another philosophical or political debate, but not a true “win”, where I cause someone’s beliefs to update in agreement with my own.
I think there’s a higher level than the level of facts: the meta-conversation. You know, the stuff we do here. I can now basically win almost all philosophical or political debates (at least with people in their early 20′s, I could use a bigger sample set of people to debate) by taking the conversation meta. I get us to settle on definitions, find out what we disagree on, analyze the thought patterns that lead us to that disagreement, dissolve the question as necessary, and usually find out that we don’t disagree as much as we thought we did. For example, I find that most political debates can be reunderstood in terms of pragmatism vs. idealism. If you do it right, it doesn’t even feel like an argument—you shouldn’t be triggering an emotional reaction from the other side.
I haven’t won that style of conversation yet with a real live anti-reductionist though. My one encounter with an anti-reductionist in the last several months ended with him contradicting himself and then changing the subject.
What do you mean “win”?
If you have a conversation with someone, during which you discover a previously held belief you had was wrong, and revise your belief, have you “lost”?
I was being overly dramatic with the win/lose terminology. In those I have conversed with , I have caused a change in belief of greater magnitude than the typical belief change resulting from another philosophical or political debate, but not a true “win”, where I cause someone’s beliefs to update in agreement with my own.