Focusing on Epistemology in Debates

[Pepin]

Epistemology is a theory in regard to the nature of reality and concept formation. Essentially, how can we know, and what the methodology in which knowledge is gained. It is at the base of all claims of knowledge, and disagreements on any argument can be traced back the epistemology trail.

 

There are many philosophies that may disagree with the above in suggesting that nothing can be known, nothing can be known yet for your own existence, that there is limit to which epistemology in that it cannot apply to ethics, that the senses are invalid or inaccurate disallowing for certainty to be achieved, and so on. I believe that the FDR philosophy and community are in agreement that reality exists and that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. With the methodology of UPB, ethical claims are not cut off from epistemology, yet rather are based on it.

 

With that out of the way, the purpose of this topic is to suggest that it may be most beneficial to focus on the root epistemology disagreements as opposed to the surface ones. What about the nature of reality and concept formation does the other person disagree with? How can a contradiction be addressed between two items when there is no perceived relation?

 

The primary benefit of this is that if you are able to convince them of a rational epistemology, then it provides a basis for all claims and beliefs to be compared to. Many people do not connect the beliefs they hold to the nature reality, and making a clear case that their beliefs must be fundamentally connected to their core beliefs of reality in order to be rational strikes at the root as opposed to popping unconnected bubbles floating aimlessly in the wind.

 

I know this suggestion is new, but I really think it ought to be a focus in the debates we have. A method I like to use is to connect any disagreement back to the foundation as opposed to the surface. If it is convincing, it not only demonstrates that it is possible for such a form of thinking to exist, but that it is valid.

[dsayers]

I struggle with this constantly. I've lost track of the amount of people that reject self-ownership (despite the self-detonating nature of that action being pointed out) because they know I'm using it to build the case that disproves their bigoted conclusion. Since you didn't give an example and I personally struggle even with fully understanding what epistemology is, is what I'm talking about here something that you could apply your suggestion to?

 

When I debate with people about these types of things, I could care less about "winning" or "losing." My interest is in the truth and if I'm wrong, I want to know and if they're wrong, I want to help them find the truth too. Or at least admit to themselves that they are intentionally avoiding it.

[TDB]

I think Stef's explanation is that people with childhood trauma issues tend to use post hoc/ motivated reasoning to defend their actions and maintain the status quo. You can't logic someone out of a position if they weren't logiced into it.

 

Jonathan Haidt also gives a nice evolutionary story to explain the prevalent tendency to be able to convince oneself conveniently in his book "The Righteous Mind."

 

But people do sometimes change their minds. That doesn't mean they have escaped their biases.

[Pepin]

Since you didn't give an example and I personally struggle even with fully understanding what epistemology is, is what I'm talking about here something that you could apply your suggestion to?

 

This is what I'd say.

 

We are beings that are made up of a particular configuration of matter. These configuration that currently comprise the human race are the result 3.5 billion years of evolution. Due to many different evolutionary mechanisms, organisms that gained a greater awareness of reality through sense data and an ability to react survived. Through a continuous compounding, it became advantageous for an organism to accurately identify and to conceptualize entities such as other organisms as something separate from itself, and to in turn to have a concept of self. If a T-Rex felt hungry, it would not look at its body and decide to eat its own flesh because it sees its own flesh as different.

 

Consciousness came about as mean for prolonging survival. Consciousness is an internal mechanism that allows an organism to relate actions, thoughts, impulses, and feelings to its originator, otherwise known as the self. Humans are the only species to be specialized in rationality, which gives a enormous ability to identify what they have influence and control over, and what they do not. It provides a mechanism for overcoming the pattern seeking of superstitious, which is to falsely relate actions or internalization with the action or internalization.

 

Self ownership, the ability to internal relate ones actions, thoughts, feels, and impulses exists, and the result of billions of years of evolution. To demonstrate a relation between your thoughts and actions in making an argument against self ownership... is certainly self defeating.

 

To comment on tactics used in my argument. I first establish that reality exists and that we are beings made of matter that are the pure consequence of physics. The use of physics in the argument not only implies empiricism and the scientific method, but also as a validation of the senses being capable of describing reality and the process of doing so, essentially epistemology. I then use evolution, which is a science is that is based on the foundation I've already laid, to establish how self-awareness and consciousness came about. Having already made the point that we are all just configurations of matter, it is then implied that the process of evolution, self-awareness, and consciousness are in the end a result of physics. Now having the basis for reality and evolution, I define consciousness and relate it to the concept of "self", and use the example of the T-Rex to make it clear that emergence of the phenomenon applies to organisms that died off millions of years ago which also had brains the size of a peanut. Though I could technically leave it there, I go on and explain the differences found in humans, and make a furthering argument that shows the capacity in humans for the concept of self is limitless due to rationality.

 

When I debate with people about these types of things, I could care less about "winning" or "losing." My interest is in the truth and if I'm wrong, I want to know and if they're wrong, I want to help them find the truth too. Or at least admit to themselves that they are intentionally avoiding it.

 

I can understand what you are saying. I'm certain that people have said "all you care about is being rights". I used to get that a lot. Now I realize that they are just projecting themselves onto me.

I think Stef's explanation is that people with childhood trauma issues tend to use post hoc/ motivated reasoning to defend their actions and maintain the status quo. You can't logic someone out of a position if they weren't logiced into it.

 

I certainly agree in many respects and it is really quite applicable to a large segment of society, but it doesn't mean you ought not to improve your argumentative ability in order to reach those who can be reach.

[ThomasDoubts]

I try to point out things I can prove to be false.  If you can convince someone to reject a held believe by proving it's falsehood, or proving that it isn't universally true, I can then explore infinite possibilities.  When others reject my arguments, it's almost always because they have a different criterion by which they evaluate truth claims. 

 

I think it's generally too hard to prove things true, so I stick with proving things false.  I find it so frustrating, what you pointed out; you can't reason someone out of a belief they weren't reasoned in to. 

 

When you say we ought to focus on the root epistemological disagreements, I think you're right.  I think more often we would start a socratic dialogue with "How do you know what is true?"  I wonder if it wouldn't be better to start it with "how do you know what is false?" 

[dsayers]

In debate, I've begun to ask early on if their interest is in the truth. I've wondered how people can escape culturally inflicted conclusions despite the adage that you cannot use logic, reason, and evidence to talk somebody out of something they didn't arrive at by logic, reason, or evidence. I think the limiting factor is an interest in the truth. I've found that the propagandists have done a smashing job at making "the truth" feel selfish and dirty.

[Pepin]

In debate, I've begun to ask early on if their interest is in the truth. I've wondered how people can escape culturally inflicted conclusions despite the adage that you cannot use logic, reason, and evidence to talk somebody out of something they didn't arrive at by logic, reason, or evidence. I think the limiting factor is an interest in the truth. I've found that the propagandists have done a smashing job at making "the truth" feel selfish and dirty.

 

Not related to this post, but how do feel about the argument I made? Is there any part of it that feels unsatisfying?

[dsayers]

Not to me, no. The people I'm thinking of who reject self-ownership would certainly find the proof you provided as to be too complicated for them to even consider. That's more of a reflection of conformation bias than your technique obviously.

 

Sorry for the delayed reply. Since joining this community, I've been overwhelmed with things I'd like to study to have a better understanding of and epistemological approach is yet another on the pile.

[TDB]

[...]

 it doesn't mean you ought not to improve your argumentative ability in order to reach those who can be reach.

Arguing is fun, but it's probably not very effective. I'm not saying you ought or ought not do anything, just I want to think about marginal result per marginal effort. I'm trying to think of more effective ways of helping people see what their choices are in other ways, maybe bitcoin, etc.

 

Stef's anti-spanking campaign has a similar flavor. He's not saying "treat your children nicely, so they will create anarcho-utopia." He says "treat your children well, so they will be happier and smarter." It still involves arguing, just not arguing in favor of the ultimate goal, but in favor of something desireable in itself that seems likely to bring us closer to that goal. Something innocuous, easy to argue for, hard to argue against. Something that is easier to study scientifically.