It seems more productive to me to work under the assumption that it is *me* in the absence of specific *directed* evidence that convinces me otherwise.

Now often I’ll be assuming it’s the other guy, but that’s because I entered the conversation with significant, already well examined priors about who the fool is likely to be. Creationists, ludwig plutonium, etc. I have lots of evidence that these folks are fools.

In an argument of this kind with some mainstream scientist or anyone with an existing solid non-crackpot reputation and minimal expertise in whatever is under discussion, my priors should be closer to 50-50 on who the fool will be in some disagreement.

Lucid dreaming is proved by Stephen LaBerge by letting lucid dreamers signal pre-decided signs with their eyes. Looking to the left or right in the dream can be seen on the eyelid. Skeptics’ dictionary’s article on lucid dreaming criticizes LaBerge, but not on his proof of the existence of lucid dreaming (http://www.skepdic.com/lucdream.html).

@ All,

I think, in general, people with foolish beliefs have a greater need to see their beliefs among others. The same thing is true for a new belief. So if I feel that I have been pushing people to believe something for a long time, and it doesn’t seem to end, I should review the basis for that belief.

why try to prove something to a fool using logic? and when has logic ever worked to convince anyone of anything?

just a thought.

Good point. Still, that doesn’t mean that what I said isn’t a valid fool sign, it just means that it isn’t a fool-proof fool sign. In that case I would be the fool, and I think it is unreasonable to expect that fools interpret fool signs correctly. Of course, it would be better if we had a list of fool-proof fool signs, which even fools could deal with. Indeed, that could be great, since fools could use the list to detect and get rid of their own foolishness.

So if you want a method of identifying a fool, there’s one surefire way that always works. It’s called ‘a mirror’! Just look into it and you’re guaranteed to see a gen-u-ine, bona fide fool looking back.

Let me note that we need not assume the fool is the other guy. Conversations between two fools can be enlightening & amusing to the witnessing third party. Shakespeare is filled with examples of this.

This could also mean your refutation so completely missed the point that only a fool would think it persuasive on properly understanding the original argument.

So it seems to be a sign that someone involved in the discussion is a fool. We just work on the assumption that it must be the other guy.

When your opponent makes an argument and you refute it, a fool, instead of refuting the refutation, or coming up with a new argument, rephrases the original argument, as if that could make it more solid.

This could also mean your refutation so completely missed the point that only a fool would think it persuasive on properly understanding the original argument.

Exactly. If a fool says to the moon-landing denier, I know space travel is real because I watched it on Battlestar Galactica, that doesn’t make space travel wrong. This is why Robin’s statement about “wanting” to know the truth is so profound. It is a driving desire that will force you to travel everywhere and talk to all, as, again, did Socrates. Plato’s dialogues are filled with fools and their signs.