I'll begin this short comment with answers to the three questions posed: 1. If we are well-experienced and our views reasonably sound, then no. Our confidence level, if based in knowledge and experience, should not be assailed by ourselves. 2. Maybe so. If we feel humbled enough by what is superior knowledge and/or experience, then deference is eminently honorable. But only if there evolves either a zero-sum outcome for us or a positive-sum effect for us and our adversary. We need not be so humble as to feel humiliated. 3. This one is tricky, but I'm not inclined to honor an expert's opinion in virtue of the fact that she IS an expert. Transactional analysis entails respectful treatment from all parties, but the expert/layman dichotomy does not require unquestioned deference, based upon some inherent hierarchy. Puffery is ineffable and inexcusable in professional discourse. Professionalism is not the sole prerogative of anyone, achievement or the lack thereof, notwithstanding. (If in doubt about this question and response, see #'s 1 and 2.)

My outlook and recalcitrant stance has confounded many in my lifetime experience, and I certainly do not always win arguments. For my part, winning the argument is not the point. Those who always strive to win, even when they are patently wrong, are functionally insecure. Some current examples, in positions of trust, shall remain unnamed. Happy St. Patty's day, to all...

I'm wondering if we can help determine when to be open-minded to ideas we disagree with by focusing on a few things:

1) The internal consistency and coherence of our own beliefs with other beliefs we hold.

2) How our beliefs and the beliefs of those we disagree with align with facts about the world which are verifiable, and at least haven't yet been falsified.

3) The fecundity of our particular beliefs for furthering the accuracy or helpfulness of other beliefs future derivative beliefs.

Reading the listening notes for this episode and great comments from Harold and Jordan, I am reminded of GK Chersteton’s thesis of the lucidity of madmen (in his “Orthodoxy”). One argument for holding reason as an ally is our belief that those gone mad have lost theirs. Chersteton believes they’re mad because they’ve lost everything except their reason. With no empathy nor emotional intelligence in their toolkit, they can’t value the experience of others. Any argument whose worth can’t be measured in utilitarian terms means nothing.

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 blog.

https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/humble-disagreement

I submit that the fundamental issue is unwillingness to accept defeat. In a debate, there will be winners and losers, and we need for the losers to respect the winners, and for the winners to respect the losers.

Our current problem is that we have escalated debate into existential crisis, where if the other side wins, it's the end of civilization as we know it, because we believe the other side does not respect us. And it's not enough for one side to accept defeat. Both sides have to accept defeat, because unilateral disarmament does not work. And we need to stop the false equivalency of blaming both sides for all disagreements.

John Navas
San Francisco

Great comments from everyone, all are very informative and reasonable. My perspective on loosing an argument is that sometimes it is better to accept the other person's point of view , especially when one is not fully acquainted with the topic of discussion. If you do so with humility you are being virtuous.
Needless to say, I do not win too many arguments.