"To really disagree with someone’s idea or opinion, you must first understand that idea or opinion.". If someone declares 2+2=5 it seems pretty clear that I don't need to get into his head to disagree. If you want a non-mathematical example, take flat earthers. The main thrust of the article seems to be that you can't just declare yourself offended and thus declare the other guy wrong. That's true/fine but he then seems to go further and say "you really need to get into the other position to show it's wrong". Here he loses me, you need to get into the other position to show why and how it's wrong. To see that a position is wrong you surely only need to show some obviously wrong consequences.
"To really disagree with someone’s idea or opinion, you must first understand that idea or opinion.". If someone declares 2+2=5 it seems pretty clear that I don't need to get into his head to disagree. If you want a non-mathematical example, take flat earthers. The main thrust of the article seems to be that you can't just declare yourself offended and thus declare the other guy wrong. That's true/fine but he then seems to go further and say "you really need to get into the other position to show it's wrong". Here he loses me, you need to get into the other position to show why and how it's wrong. To see that a position is wrong you surely only need to show some obviously wrong consequences.
ReplyDeleteI think you understand "2+2=5" perfectly.
Delete