Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint
...
But we obviously don't always agree on some pretty major items. Can we not at least pretend momentarilly that the other person might be aware of something that we are not, and try to imagine what the set of variables that would support that scenario would look like, and then try to reconcile that with our observations of reality in order to determine the basic feasbility of what they are proposing?
I mean, that's how you learn things.
...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
...
No, that's not how you learn things, you learn things by questioning, not pretending/imagining. Questioning the whys/hows, and when the response is based on verifiable lies they've swallowed, rather than experience or reasoning, there's nothing to learn except they are gullible
...
|
Sorry, Bruce, I did a very poor job of explaining this point.
I appreciate your no-nonsense approach, and your detailed reply indicated you had put a lot of thought into weighing my comments. Please allow me to go into slightly more depth on this one point.
This is a theory of conflict resolution that I have been mulling over for a few years...
The scenario that I described above is the direct opposite of what I often observe people doing, i.e. when a conflicting opinion is presented, emphasis is placed on a detail which 'proves' that the opinion is wrong. This reinforces the listener's opinion, deflects the speaker's opinion, and maintains the status quo--conflict. The listener may even be boggled by the seemingly outlandish nature of a supporting detail which is required to support the speaker's opinion. The conflicting opinion may be interpreted in such a way as to be so far from feasibility that the speaker must be characterized as foolish or incompetent. This is the frequent course of 'argumentative' discussions.
Now, for a change of routine, what if we were to imagine that the speaker is not unintelligent? Certainly people have had different experiences, and have access to different knowledge than ourselves. If we reverse the normal pattern of conflict, and attempt
not to carefully construct a scenario in which the speaker is certainly wrong, but rather the opposite--conceptualize a scenario where the speaker is correct, we have access, albeit tentative or temporarily, to a different thought pattern--we can break ourselves out of our normal bias and preconceptions. Then, we thoroughly test this new theory, making an honest attempt within the boundaries of our own critical thinking techniques, and if we still cannot observe any soundness to the idea, we can 'agree to disagree' --in a civil fashion, having made our best attempt.
When I stated this is "how you learn" I meant, of course, that it is but one of the methods available. Essentially, this is applying a
thought experiment to conflict resolution. I respectfully submit that many heavy thinkers, such as Albert Einstein, would have disagreed that you can't learn things through pretending/imagining.