Re:Checklist of Rationality Habits
by dalke on Saturday January 03, 2015 @02:08PM
(#8831651)
As a scientist, empiricism is very important to me as rationality alone will lead you into the thickets of solipsism.
Is there an expected useful outcome for challenging every statement? "My favorite dessert is chocolate cake" can be countered with "I've seen you choose apple pie instead of chocolate cake for dessert the last 3 of 5 times". But so what? Why do you think your limited observations trump the speaker's more complete knowledge enough to force an argument at that point?
It doesn't sound like you've used feedback from your previous arguments in order to determine if you indeed have enough information to have a meaningful counter-argument. Doubt fuels empiricism, not rationalism.
There's also an opportunity cost. "The Vikings made it to North America" can be challenged with "but the Norse of Greenland weren't really Vikings", inviting a competitive but ultimately bland argument about various etymological nuances, when the speaker actually wanted to bring up the latest archeological finds on Baffin Island. The speaker may be less likely to talk with you in the future about interesting ideas, to avoid being dragged into inane debates.
There's also the possibility that you are being deliberately distracted. A reflexive challenge means you only really consider the surface arguments, and not the underlying premise. If someone says that Agile is better than Waterfall, your response could be to point out cases where Waterfall is better, without realizing how that discussion tends to assume the creation myth of Agile, constructed on a false narrative of history. (See http://www.infoq.com/articles/bossavit-agile-ten-years-on .)
Statements are data points, not debate points. You may feel like you need to respond to them at once. Or you can collect them, use to them test and refine your hypotheses about what the other person is saying, and estimate if it's useful enough to voice a contrary opinion.
Is there an expected useful outcome for challenging every statement? "My favorite dessert is chocolate cake" can be countered with "I've seen you choose apple pie instead of chocolate cake for dessert the last 3 of 5 times". But so what? Why do you think your limited observations trump the speaker's more complete knowledge enough to force an argument at that point?
It doesn't sound like you've used feedback from your previous arguments in order to determine if you indeed have enough information to have a meaningful counter-argument. Doubt fuels empiricism, not rationalism.
There's also an opportunity cost. "The Vikings made it to North America" can be challenged with "but the Norse of Greenland weren't really Vikings", inviting a competitive but ultimately bland argument about various etymological nuances, when the speaker actually wanted to bring up the latest archeological finds on Baffin Island. The speaker may be less likely to talk with you in the future about interesting ideas, to avoid being dragged into inane debates.
There's also the possibility that you are being deliberately distracted. A reflexive challenge means you only really consider the surface arguments, and not the underlying premise. If someone says that Agile is better than Waterfall, your response could be to point out cases where Waterfall is better, without realizing how that discussion tends to assume the creation myth of Agile, constructed on a false narrative of history. (See http://www.infoq.com/articles/bossavit-agile-ten-years-on .)
Statements are data points, not debate points. You may feel like you need to respond to them at once. Or you can collect them, use to them test and refine your hypotheses about what the other person is saying, and estimate if it's useful enough to voice a contrary opinion.