Regarding if we should avoid disagreeing, Eliezer once wrote: The central argument for Modesty proposes something like a Rawlsian veil of ignorance – how can you know which of you is the honest truthseeker, and which the stubborn self-deceiver? … the obvious reply: "But I know perfectly well who the fool is. It’s the other guy. It doesn’t matter that he says the same thing – he’s
tl;dr rather than use a reality test, hone a (test for a) theory of mind. It works for both the dreaming case and the fool case: in the case of the dream, it guides moral behaviour and encourages the development of moral precepts both within and without dreams (not to mention possibly grit), in the case of the fool, you get to cooperate to the extent permissible.
"We just work on the assumption that it must be the other guy."
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/lucd....
@ 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.
fool-2. A person deficient in intellect; one who acts absurdly, or pursues a course contrary to the dictates of wisdom; one without judgment; a simpleton; a dolt.
why try to prove something to a fool using logic? and when has logic ever worked to convince anyone of anything?
"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." Nick Tarleton
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.
Alas, if only humanity could be split into two convenient groups: fools and the wise. The reality is that they're all fools most of the time, and a few are occasionally wise on narrow subjects for short periods.
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.
It's curious how the discussion seems to split between two subjects, dreams and foolishness, which makes me doubt that the analogy between the two is so good an analogy (though I thought it was, when I first read it).
One more fool sign: 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.
"Lack of social skills doesn't mean the core argument is wrong." frelkins
Does the fact that the arguer is a fool necessarily mean that the core argument is wrong?
@Joseph: While I don't know if it would be under the umbrella of "foolishness", one of the significant characteristics of incompetence is an unawareness of that incompetence.
So it's doubtful that fools would be sitting around contemplating how foolish they are, because that alone would make them substantially less foolish.
And your characterization of sleeping as a state where we can't think about whether we are asleep doesn't seem to make it a good analogy for justified disagreement, right?
Or one where our thinking about whether we're asleep is hopelessly muddled. This is an OK analogy for at least those disagreements justified by greater intelligence or rationality - since those impair the ability to determine just how intelligent/rational one is - but we have less or no experience of being less or more intelligent than we are, and we can expect our deliberation about our intelligence/rationality to be much more distorted by ego.
I'm surprised I don't see this mentioned already: an ineffective belief is a bad sign. Taking a new easy target for a change: some people believe in a flat earth, but the people who put up satellites to beam down TV signals - a very visible sign of positive utility - all advocate modern heliocentric theories.
Sleepy Fools
This post inspired a blog post : https://plus.google.com/105...
tl;dr rather than use a reality test, hone a (test for a) theory of mind. It works for both the dreaming case and the fool case: in the case of the dream, it guides moral behaviour and encourages the development of moral precepts both within and without dreams (not to mention possibly grit), in the case of the fool, you get to cooperate to the extent permissible.
tl;dr tl;dr turing test.
"We just work on the assumption that it must be the other guy."
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.
@ Poke,
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/lucd....
@ 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.
fool-2. A person deficient in intellect; one who acts absurdly, or pursues a course contrary to the dictates of wisdom; one without judgment; a simpleton; a dolt.
why try to prove something to a fool using logic? and when has logic ever worked to convince anyone of anything?
just a thought.
"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." Nick Tarleton
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.
Frelkins: in this context, "the other guy" is meant to mean "not you." The implicit sign of a fool is that he disagrees with you.
Alas, if only humanity could be split into two convenient groups: fools and the wise. The reality is that they're all fools most of the time, and a few are occasionally wise on narrow subjects for short periods.
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.
@zubon
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.
@jls
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.
It's curious how the discussion seems to split between two subjects, dreams and foolishness, which makes me doubt that the analogy between the two is so good an analogy (though I thought it was, when I first read it).
One more fool sign: 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.
"Lack of social skills doesn't mean the core argument is wrong." frelkins
Does the fact that the arguer is a fool necessarily mean that the core argument is wrong?
@Joseph: While I don't know if it would be under the umbrella of "foolishness", one of the significant characteristics of incompetence is an unawareness of that incompetence.
So it's doubtful that fools would be sitting around contemplating how foolish they are, because that alone would make them substantially less foolish.
If fools devised lists of "fool signs" what would they come up with?
Would they list signs of pathological mainstreams?
And your characterization of sleeping as a state where we can't think about whether we are asleep doesn't seem to make it a good analogy for justified disagreement, right?
Or one where our thinking about whether we're asleep is hopelessly muddled. This is an OK analogy for at least those disagreements justified by greater intelligence or rationality - since those impair the ability to determine just how intelligent/rational one is - but we have less or no experience of being less or more intelligent than we are, and we can expect our deliberation about our intelligence/rationality to be much more distorted by ego.
I'm surprised I don't see this mentioned already: an ineffective belief is a bad sign. Taking a new easy target for a change: some people believe in a flat earth, but the people who put up satellites to beam down TV signals - a very visible sign of positive utility - all advocate modern heliocentric theories.