It is relatively easy to be wrong about some notion or belief you possess---some position or stance you assume. Chance favors the prepared mind and if one is prepared and has done the requisite homework, chances of winning an opponent over to his/her camp are measurably improved. This can be achieved, even in the presence of superior intellect. I mentioned before that I do not always win arguments, stating affirmatively that winning is not always the point, nor even a necessity. Why do I say this? Because, in rare instances, losing an argument achieves an even rarer result: the winner finds that the victory was, in fact, a hollow one. Although his argument was well-presented, with appropriate facts and impeccable strategy, the outcome shows him that his intention was based on ego rather than finding a useful and viable solution. Great minds make this sort of blunder every day: Albert Einstein allegedly stated that God does not play dice. Any reasonable thinking human being is pretty certain that this is false, given the evolutionary nature of life on Planet Earth. I suppose we might say, in Einstein's defense: evolution DOES play dice, and always has. But, that too, would be unsatisfying, inasmuch as evolution has no such notions, pro or con. Albert had a problem with Darwin. Of course, this did not hold him back, as far as we can tell...

Above all, we need to pick our battles. And not waste time on any of those that have neither added nor fundamental value.

Interesting piece. I've always found it interesting how competitive we can be when we discuss differing points of view, and how much of ourselves we invest in what we believe.

Personally I think the issue is that we take too much of our self worth from what we believe. By doing this, when what we believe is challenged, it feels like we are being challenged. And I suppose in a sense, we are. If we consider ourselves, and our worth, to be a mixture of our utility and what we believe about how the world is and ought to be. But I think that if we were to have some kind of inherent worth, that is, to consider ourselves at least to some extent worthwhile with little regard to our utility or how others see us , this effect would be lessened, and we could have more constructive debates. Maybe (ok, probably) I'm naive in thinking that's viable, but I don't think that if we all thought more of our own worth then our motivation to be useful, good, productive people would be lessened.

The dialectical method isn't the only way of investigating something. I like to think that if we were a bit less competitive as a society we would be much better at discussing issues, or disagreeing without so much vitriol.

I like the idea that much of our issues with each other disagreeing comes from our desire to not be seen as stubborn or anti-intellectual through our inability to consider the views of others. The problem would then become how to get people to care about the truth, before becoming set on it (at least enough to only care about their own investigations of it). I've always had an unreasonable amount of respect (or maybe it's just envy) for people who are self-assured enough in their opinions that they're unlikely to have them be changed, but there are two ways to get there: To be so knowledgeable and studied in an issue that you know you cannot be given new information that will change your view. Or to be very ignorant. If the stick to your guns approach is to be a reasonable one, then it can only be so in the former case.

I think like everything it's a murky shade of grey.. The more you know about any given issue the more reasonable it is to expect that your opinion won't be changed, because you're less likely to encounter new information that might change your view. Of course, that doesn't consider that emotions may also play a large part in deciding what we feel about certain things. I've read of vegetarians who've only become vegetarian after encountering something that made them feel awful about eating meat, even if whatever they encountered was already known to them. There's a difference between considering how you might feel if you were "x" in "y" situation, and actually experiencing being "x" in "y" situation.

Skepticism toward one's own belief is valid. Humility is steeped in self denigration and comes with baggage. Encouraging someone to be humble is to take their power. Encouraging them to be skeptical does the opposite.

So what does it mean to disagree. I like the persuade vs. truth angle. Those are two different actions. To this I would add trust. At different points in our lives we have limited ability to agree at all. Some never have that ability - these people need care not persuasion. That care is compromised when trust is not secured (think of children, seniors, injured and disabled people.) Building agreements based on trust are the most important of all actions. This is missing in this discussion.

The call for solace in method is vapid. Saying it is complicated is a cop out. Let's get it on people. This was indeed a terrible place to leave it.

Here is a worthy project in this vein.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/26/insider/police-protest-videos.html

The funny thing here is that the scene they dissect is 3 minutes or so after the first shot that set a gunman running to the protection of mother culture.

What I find worthy in this journalistic approach is to put readers/viewers in the scene. Perhaps with virtual reality this sort of approach could reduce disagreement on belief and reduce opinions to matters of fact. The surveillance such a world would require is too malleable in the hands of the few IMO. That is another story playing out in our lives.

This was a good show. I listen to these and find comments I left in past shows or think about where I was when this aired...

Often, I disagree with the self I experienced only a year ago (more often not if I am being honest.) To that person (and his time honored well packed bias baggage) only ... I am humble... well... and maybe to the self who will read this blog or show note when it again is aired... if I make it until then.

Cross posting with the September 27, 2020 airing of the show...

https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/how-humbly-disagree

When last I thought about this topic, philosophy talk was the only blog I read and submitted comments on. Now, after a few years, there are others. These are largely fortresses of academic intellectualism. That stated, the blog owners are vastly more humble than a majority of commenters who delight in tripping up their hosts and attempting to promote their own intellectual prowess. Of course, your forum here has its' own imps and scoundrels. Which shows me one thing: the world of public intellectuals is the same everywhere. There are all kinds of interests, preferences and motives.