.
It's again and again disturbing to observe the expectations about one's track record of being correct (or not).
Many people actually expect that you need to be correct every time - or else (they disregard your opinion in the future).
There are businesses where being correct in 55% of your decisions turns you into a millionaire real quick. World-famous experts often have a track record of being correct in about 75% of their discussions (ignoring those discussions where the truth is still unknown).
A 100% correctness expectation is unrealistic for everyone. I would be extremely surprised if I was correct with more than 70% of my blog posts (excluding those without a statement that could be checked for correctness).
- - - - -
There are basically two kinds of discussions to me:
(A) A discussion is about a topic in which the correct stance can be proven beyond doubt.
(These are usually about technical or historical facts.)
I may choose a position and argue in its favour, hoping that the better arguments will win.
I do at times even provide partial evidence that supports the other side, for completeness' sake.
(B) A discussion about a topic which is rather about a consideration.
("We should emphasize mobility more! - No!")
I may choose a position and argue in its favour, expecting that all observers and participants gain additional info and points of view for their consideration.
My blog posts should always be seen in the context of other, often rather mainstream sources.
On the other hand, I've got little understanding for those who disagree on a topic and then turn this disagreement into a general rejection of positions from other topics (or even into ad hominem attacks).
S.O.
.
'When somone is honestly 55% right that's very good and there's no use wrangling. And if someone is 60% right, it's wonderful, it's great luck, and let him thank god. But what's to be said about 75% right. Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100% right? Whoever says he's 100% right is a fanatic, a thug and the worst kind of rascal.'
ReplyDeleteFrom the preface of "The Captive Mind", by Czesław Miłosz
Glückliches neues Jahr!
"I've got little understanding for those who disagree on a topic and then turn this disagreement into a general rejection of positions from other topics (or even into ad hominem attacks)."
ReplyDeleteWe haven't always agreed on the 'correct' intersection of military and politics, but i continue to recommend this site to others in addition to regularly visiting it myself.
That isn't generous or charitable, it is merely dispassionate and analytical, anything else would be ridiculous.
Discussions should be about trying to uncover the truth (with a small 't', the big 'T' is beyond our grasp but it is admirable to try. Its mainly about the journey and not the destination. You cannot separate them.)
ReplyDeleteIts much more pleasant to discuss with people you disagree but are honest and don't jump to conclusions than to discuss with people you agree with but are not thinking critically.