Debating World Views - Chapter 2: Epistemology and Authority - Part 1

[COEXISTential]

Loving the differing shades of greenists, yellowists, etc. :D

[AkasakaS2000]

An ad for Firefox? jkjk ignore me please

[Mectrixctic]

Except Ryan did read the books X, Y, and Z, whereas Brian didn't read A, B, or C. :P

[KnownNoMore]

@Mectrixctic

No they both read the exact same books

[anothernullifidian]

far too much time for the content received

[balanceseeker]

Interesting thought experiment. Makes me think the Blue worldview deserves some examination, if both sides must rely on fallacious arguments to support their positions. In addition, the fact that each read the same books and those books dealt with the arguments found in subsequent books read, it would seem that neither individual was digging hard enough to find the truth of the matter.

[KnownNoMore]

@balanceseeker

Actually this is not really a thought experiment. Its more in the line of an illustration.

"if both sides must rely on fallacious arguments"

Nothing in the video suggests anything about the quality or soundsness of the arguments of either side.

"it would seem that neither individual was digging hard enough to find the truth of the matter."

Maybe, maybe not. But I doubt either of one would agree that they werent digging hard enough for the truth.

[balanceseeker]

@KnownNoMore "Not really a thought experiment"

You say tomato; I say tomato.

"Nothing in the video suggests..."

Except the part about books XYZ highlighting the fallacious arguments made in books ABC, and vice versa...

"Maybe, maybe not. But I doubt either of one (sic) would agree that they werent (sic) digging hard enough for the truth"

When they knowingly accept fallacious arguments, they are not digging hard enough, even if they do not want to accept that as being true.

[KnownNoMore]

"Except the part about books XYZ highlighting the fallacious arguments made in books ABC, and vice versa..."

Thats the position of the authors. Maybe one of them is wrong, maybe they are both wrong. Maybe both world views are wrong. Maybe one of them is correct. Dont assume to much.

"When they knowingly accept fallacious arguments"

They dont knowningly accept them, and maybe one side actually has sound and valid arguments. You cant know that since you know nothing about the books yourself

[balanceseeker]

@KnownNoMore Well, I was basing my response on the available information, and I am quite aware that in many debates, indeed in many cases where worldviews collide, the use of fallacious arguments is fairly commonplace. It shouldn't be, of course, as such argumentation does not bolster one's position.

Now that things are a bit more vague, is it part of this illustration that both sides have good, valid, and indeed sound arguments for the position of Green and Yellow?

[KnownNoMore]

@balanceseeker

Its part of the illustration that you dont know what the arguments are or even what the world views are. This video is intentionally vague. This video is also not an argument itself on my part.

Also remember that this video is not a stand alone like none of the videos in the series stand on their own, they suplement eachother and are part of a larger picture.

So if this video doesnt do anything for you, then it simply doesnt. Thats perfectly fine.

[balanceseeker]

@KnownNoMore Fair enough, but I thought more clarification would be helpful in analyzing the situation presented. I find an implied conclusion, that two people can look at the same evidence and arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions, to be interesting. I just thought it would be interesting to explore the fullness of the situation involved to understand why that is.

[KnownNoMore]

@AKBadBoy911

Oh absolutely, and that was to be expected :)

[MonotonePeanut]

That green world view is really harmonious and well thought out, completely unlike the yellow since it can explain things that the yellow world view can't. At least the yellow person that converted to green actually tried to read the material! The former-green yellow evil-doer was such a block head and didn't know a well supported argument when they saw one. Poor diluted sinner. Following the yellow shaitan will never lead to the green fields of everlasting joy.

[secularisrael]

You are implying that the same people, having internalized the same arguments and having the same knowledge, would reach opposite conclusions, and that that's rational. I don't think that's true. Differences in opinion are largely due to irrationality, lack of knowledge, or dogmatism. (There is some ground to maintain prior beliefs will lead to some distribution in rational opinion, but it doesn't seem it should be substantial.)

[KnownNoMore]

@secularisrael

"You are implying that the same people, having internalized the same arguments and having the same knowledge, would reach opposite conclusions, and that that's rational."

would? no not "would".

Also this video is not an argument, its more of an illustration. Neither does it stand on its own

[Uhlbelk]

I completely agree. I think the general truth of the matter most commonly is something more along the line of...the person is given good arguments against their world view, run to the internet to find anything to refute to the argument, then no matter how flimsy the refutation is, they cling to it and their original world view like a drowning man grabs a twig.

[HConstantine]

The flaw in the premise is that all world views are not equally valid.

[KnownNoMore]

@HConstantine

The flaw in what premise?

[HConstantine]

@KnownNoMore That world views are entirely rhetorical structures. They aren't. It really is wrong to circumcize one's daughters; evolution really is true, vaccines really don't cause autism, regardless of one's world view.

[KnownNoMore]

@HConstantine

Sure, but I still dont get the point? How is that related to this video?

[Arikiel]

Unitarians = rainbow world view

Agnostics = grey world view

Atheists = transparent world view

^_^

[KnownNoMore]

@caseagainstfaith

Just wait till you hear about the scarlet red with magenta stripes world view.

[herbiepop]

If only 'world views' were really based on rational argument.

[KnownNoMore]

@herbiepop

There's indeed a lot more to everyone's world view than merely rational argumentation.

[ThePr0tege]

Damn, I thought they were going to have a conversation and then both turn blue. LOL that would have been awesome.

[KnownNoMore]

@ThePr0tege

LOL, hadnt thought about that :p that indeed would have been funny.

[ThePr0tege]

@KnownNoMore I say redo it that way. ; )

[justicecallicles]

"Tiger, tiger, burning bright

In the forests of the night,

What immortal hand or eye

Could frame thy fearful symmetry?"

[KnownNoMore]

@justicecallicles

"In what distant deeps or skies

Burnt the fire of thine eyes?

On what wings dare he aspire?

What the hand dare seize the fire?"

But what does that have to do with anything :p ?

[justicecallicles]

@KnownNoMore "But what does that have to do with anything :p ?"

Symmetry seems to be the "problem" here. The Green and Yellow world views (and the stories of the people who hold them) are as if mirror images of each other, giving neither an advantage. And it's human nature to dislike or fear the uncertainty, ambiguity, or indecisiveness situations like this can lead to.

[threephasewolf]

well put

[82abhilash]

It all seems to hinge on the sequence in which the world views where introduced rather than the world views itself. Order matters.

[KnownNoMore]

@82abhilash

In what way? Brian and Ryan's story occurs simulteanously

[KnownNoMore]

@82abhilash

Oh you mean the order in which Brian and Ryan were introduced to the green and yellow world views? Oh yes, definitely, order matters in that respect.