Comment by TheAceOfHearts | Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheAceOfHearts | Hacker News Reader

I've posted this quote a few times before, and I find it fully relevant to this discussion:

> He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.

― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

A few months back I read "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion", by Jonathan Haidt. I'd highly suggest reading it for anyone seeking to improve their understanding of the ideological landscape in modern America. From the publisher's summary: In The Righteous Mind, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt explores the origins of our divisions and points the way forward to mutual understanding.

The biggest problem I'm seeing with many online communities is the unwillingness to engage with others. There's no discussions, they just tell you that you're wrong and evil, and then they ban or block you. That's no way to change people's mind; it just makes people more likely to dig in their heels. If you want to change people's views you need to engage them calmly and with respect. One of the greatest example of this that I can think of is Daryl Davis, a black man who converted ~200 people from the KKK just by befriending them.

This is a very high-minded concept, but I just can't see how it would work in practice.

To take an example less divisive than politics, I'll use religion (yeah–go figure).

Say you're an agnostic biologist. One Sunday, you meet your new neighbour, who happens to be an Eckists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckankar#Teachings). After a few weeks of infrequent small talk, he becomes dead set on helping you find you way to God's graces through a series of 25 two-hour rituals of singing the 'Hu'. He's also really excited by having someone to share his theory of the spiritual fluid "yam" that separates the living matter from the dead, and he considers "DNA" to be a hoax perpetrated by the Christadelphian Conspiracy.

You make what you believe is a very good case against any God existing, give an even better overview of the basics of molecular biology, and point out some of the most glaring inconsistencies in his theory of life.

But he comes back at you with the full force of someone spending about 500% as much time thinking and reading about religion and "yam" than you do. He always has an argument, and sometimes it takes a sleepless night to figure out where his argument actually breaks down.

Through no fault of yours, his internet connection starts developing the ugly habit of showing rather immoral photos of all genders where he would usually expect to see completely wholesome photos of the Eckankars' last Day of Celebrating Celibacy and Celery. He finally moves out.

You new neighbour is Frances. He is excited to tell you everything about his Christadelphian faith, and how the walnut is actually the most intelligent brain on the planet. He also has all the answers.

Now imagine there's an endless supply of these people, and they start showing up at work, starting to make legislation to cut your funding, and march across campus with their "Torches for the Glory of Walnut Yam". Do you actually belief your study of mitochondrial diseases will be improved by debating every single one of them? Remember: they don't operate by your standard of reasoning: whenever you find the missing link between hamster and opossum, they just see it as two new missing links in the chain of evolution.

While everything you said is true, I think it misses the point. It's clear that in order to have a reasonable discussion, we need to have two reasonable people who are willing to discuss. And you may just include "is not a conspiracy theory nutjob" or "is able to express his/her point of view in a clear way" in your definition of reasonable (of course, you should'nt include "agrees with me" in your definition of reasonable").

The point is that you should try it out to see whether they're "reasonable". And if they are, then you're supposed to have an open, genuine discussion with them.

In that case, we do indeed agree. Except, probably, where exactly those lines get drawn. There is obviously a grey area, and we probably have more nuanced options to react, rather than just a binary engage/ignore.

I believe my argument was based on those culture war examples of the last months–most notably Charlottesville, where this idea of debating ideas on equal footing was frequently invoked. But it may be my German schooling that puts the ideas aired at those rallies firmly outside the Overton Window.

The scenario you described is a bit of a straw-man that assumes the most extreme position of every opponent you come across: that every person who believes in god is unreasonable to some extent or another. This allows you to take the extreme position of dismissing every one of your opponent's positions by assuming there is some bit of irrationality at its core instead of embracing the possibility that someone can maintain a different perspective than you and not necessarily be labeled as wrong.

Not every single opinion on the planet requires you to truly embrace the possibility that you may be wrong. But when enough people have that opinion, chances are that there is some other motivation for their belief beyond mass delusion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com