In a message dated 8/31/2000 7:30:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
rhanson@gmu.edu writes:
>
> So which is it, do our disagreements with opponents tend to be more
> about values, or more about facts?
>
Well, why one earth would it be only one? Sounds like you're looking for
choosing one tactic to turn them to your line of thinking. Varying tactics
are needed depending on the outcome of your decision here.
Obviously it's both. It's not true you can't change a persons' values, but
you can't do it by arguing facts, you're right about that.
You speak of what we may learn from our "opponents".** Many of the objections
will be in the form of values, feelings and priorities.Values are not easy to
talk about. So you'll find the 'fact' disagreements sounding like strong
arguments, and the 'value' disagreements will be vague sounding like
"well...I'm unsure.. it's not right... and I'm not comfortable".
In the realm where most extra-rationals live, it's far more likely they'll
argue than provide comfort.
N
**(I do NOT think of people who disagree with me as opponents)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:36:52 MDT