Re: flame wars

From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Sat Jul 19 2003 - 13:19:10 MDT

  • Next message: Spike: "RE: Ethical Investment Gone Wild"

    It's unfortunate that we find it so difficult to discuss controversial
    subjects without resorting to flaming. These are issues that people
    have strong feelings about, but rationality demands that the discussion
    occur in objective and intellectual terms, without resorting to emotion
    and personal attacks. Only in that way can we acquire the best quality
    information to guide our own views, which should be our main goal here.

    I have mostly been able to stay out of these arguments, not really because
    I am above such things, but in most cases because I don't have the strong
    opinions on the matter that others do. These controversial issues have
    very strong arguments on both sides, which forces me to adopt a middle or
    "undecided" role.

    From my perspective, those who hold strong opinions on these issues are
    mistaken. They don't really have sufficient grounds to hold the strong
    opinions that they do. If things were really as clear as the partisans
    think, why would so many intelligent people hold the opposite views?
    That point alone essentially proves to me that the only rational viewpoint
    is to be undecided.

    However, I understand that people do have arguments to justify the claim
    that they are right and so many people are wrong. Some will claim that
    few truly intelligent people hold the other view. Others will say that
    those on the other side are simply irrational, affected by emotion,
    prejudice, close-mindedness or wishful thinking, while those on their
    own side are thinking clearly and rationally.

    Ironically, in rejecting such arguments, I am forced to adopt an
    even more radical view, which is that the partisans on both sides are
    behaving irrationally! In effect, I claim that those in the "undecided"
    middle are the only rational ones, with people on both the right and left
    behaving irrationally. Then, of course, those on the right will claim
    that the leftists and undecideds are irrational, while those on the left
    will say that it is the rightists and undecideds who are irrational.

    So really, my position is no stronger logically than anyone else's.
    I guess that means I have to doubt my own commitment to the middle.
    Maybe the partisans are right!

    Hal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 19 2003 - 13:29:32 MDT