site banner
felipec  unbelief  1yr ago (felipec.substack.com)   3234 thread views

2+2 = not what you think

felipec.substack.com

Changing someone's mind is very difficult, that's why I like puzzles most people get wrong: to try to open their mind. Challenging the claim that 2+2 is unequivocally 4 is one of my favorites to get people to reconsider what they think is true with 100% certainty.

-34
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If you prove Alice isn't racist, you haven't proven anything relevant. You're just nitpicking.

In your opinion, which isn't infallible.

I'm listening to the supporting case and engaging with your arguments.

This is not enough. Open debate requires an open mind: you must accept the possibility that you might be wrong.

If you don't even accept the possibility that you might be wrong about anything, then there's no point in debating, not about Alice, not about Bob, not about anything. All you are doing is wasting the time of your interlocutor.

This in my view is arguing in bad faith. If there's absolutely no way you can be convinced otherwise, then what am I even doing?

You're mainly arguing he's as racist as Alice and I happen to know she isn't.

Therefore it's impossible for you to be convinced of anything (about Alice and even less of Bob), and there's no point in me even trying.

In your opinion, which isn't infallible.

Is that supposed to be a counterargument?

This is not enough.

Yes it is. Listening to your case and engaging with your argument will make me change my mind if your case is convincing enough.

Therefore it's impossible for you to be convinced of anything (about Alice and even less of Bob), and there's no point in me even trying.

No, it's still possible for me to be convinced of true things.

You'e right there's no point trying to convince me of a false statement about math. Instead you should let yourself be convinced by me.

Listening to your case and engaging with your argument will make me change my mind

No it won't.

No, it's still possible for me to be convinced of true things.

Obvious circular reasoning. You believe X is false, and you say it's possible for you to be convinced that X is true if X were true, but X is false, because you believe X is false. Could not be more obvious.

Do you accept the possibility that X may be true? Yes or no.

No it won't.

Now you're making an unsupported assumption about my character instead of an argument. Retract it and apologize.

Obvious circular reasoning. You believe X is false, and you say it's possible for you to be convinced that X is true if X were true, but X is false, because you believe X is false.

No, I proved X is false separately. "X is false, because I believe X is false" is not an argument I've made.

Do you accept the possibility that X may be true? Yes or no.

No. X is a mathematical claim, and it's proven false.

Note that if you make a new argument I will consider the possibility again while analyzing your argument.

Now you're making an unsupported assumption about my character instead of an argument. Retract it and apologize.

You just accepted your mind cannot possibly be changed below.

Do you accept the possibility that X may be true? Yes or no.

No.

That's the end of the road then.

You just accepted your mind cannot possibly be changed below.

I accepted that my mind cannot be changed on a proven statement. This naturally excludes the possibility of a convincing argument. But in the general case, my mind can be changed.

That's the end of the road then.

No, it remains to convince you that X is false.

No, it remains to convince you that X is false.

If there was a person willing to engage in open debate who I had a chance to convince, sadly there's none. There is no point in debate if one side is completely closed off.

I'm willing to engage in open debate with you, and your chance to convince me depends on the correctness of your position. You can't expect to convince anyone if you don't have a point. An open mind does not require me to ignore knowledge I have.*

If you refuse to talk further when you turn out to be wrong, you will never learn anything.

*And you don't see it, but I did some research to verify my position before responding. Do you insist Russell should doubt 1+1=2 after writing PM?

And if you make a new argument, I will do more research to refute it.

I'm willing to engage in open debate with you, and your chance to convince me depends on the correctness of your position.

And who decides the correctness of my position? You. So in order for me to be able to convince you that X may be true, I first have to convince you that X may be true, but X cannot be true, because you have decided that the position that X may be true is not correct, why? Because X cannot be true.

How is this not the definition of circular reasoning?

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats