Sofia (40C3) on Nostr: > You claim that necessary perspective can always be acquired in a good faith ...

> You claim that necessary perspective can always be acquired in a good faith engagement, but I am genuinely baffled by this position. Where are all of these relevant ideas that neither had going to come from? If one person argues that P=NP and one person argues that P=/=NP, and their discussion is long enough and good faith enough then will one of them magically acquire the proof of their position? I'm convinced you don't believe that. Is there another way for them to resolve their disagreement? Maybe you should be the one to tell me, in my example, is there an obstacle preventing them from acquiring the perspective that allows them to resolve their disagreement?
> You claim that it's impossible for someone to know whether they have a piece of reasoning that can't be explained. But that seems really simple to me. If someone tries to come up with a good justification for one of their conclusions and they don't... then isn't that proof that they can't do it right now? And isn't that a good reason for them to leave the argument?

ideas != perspectives, regarding ideas:

if someone has a good reason to believe whatever they do, then a good faith discussion will inevitably lead to acquiring that reason from them, otherwise, it will lead to them realizing they do not have such a reason

the point is precisely that either is true in any circumstance:
1. *someone* has such ideas, and will provide it to the other
2. no one has such ideas, which means they will realize it, and that will lead to abstaining from believing whatever may depend on them

so no one will invent those ideas, they will simply realize that they do not have them and the implication of that (the invalidity of claiming anything that depends on them)

and regarding perspectives, developing new perspectives by combining disparate ideas is literally *how dialectics work*, entirely new perspectives can be created by combining different people's ideas, perspectives *emerge* (as in the formal definition) from ideas

> You are 100% correct when you say that if someone has a fully sound logical and evidentiary basis for a belief then they will always have a response in an argument. (Well, assuming they are articulate enough to properly express their response to the other person.) However this is a very high standard for having a discussion. Do you have rigorous logical and mathematical definitions for every word you use in an argument? (Good life goal though, I approve.) Do you have empirical studies demonstrating every little tiny piece of common knowledge that both people already agree on anyway? Nobody does.

that is an extremely low bar lol, it is morally abhorrent to believe *anything* without seriously researching and scrutinizing it first, there are absolutely zero exceptions to that, and the fact so many people do so is the root cause of many of the world's problems

> Ironically, the best way to develop a really strong foundation for one's arguments is to lower one's standards and to increase the amount of imperfect arguments one has. Always conceding incompleteness, abstaining from maintaining a position, and proceeding to disengage is the worst possible way for someone to formulate a better position in the long run.

there is no world in which "lowering your standards is the best way to become better" is a sensible statement, regardless of the subject