Sometimes the urge to correct disinformation is *so* strong.
But it's not always the right time, and people aren't always receptive.
(Sometimes they know they're bending the truth, but pursuing other ends when doing so.)
At those moments, one can "use the tools"...
But a humanist strategy is to learn to sit with and learn from the discomfort of not being able to fix every factually incorrect belief.
We're not always going to share the same convictions.
We *do* have to share the same world.
Perhaps substitute "Right opponent" for "Right time".
Not that I want to argue about it :)
"When is a good time?"
When there's capacity to hear it. We often think of the internet as the most important battleground, but it's really not.
There's a lot of bluster online that stumps at meaningful discourse - but mostly, we're dealing with people working through trauma, or deflecting from discomfort.
"If you're combative then it will be combative."
Unfortunately, disinformation doesn't work like that; propagandists will leverage *any* engagement to more hostile ends.
Yes, I was also thinking, when the argument has a chance of producing some desired outcome.
This was my favourite lesson from New Atheism: we are far too enamoured by the idea that a "good argument" will bring us all to an amicably shared truth.
The lie of "rationalism" is that we're ever operating at a remove from biochemistry.
We carry into every debate not only core values shaped by experience, but also an understanding of how discourse can be leveraged for power.
Online, very few of us are playing for "truth" so much as "security in our initial POV".
@MLClark To be frank, I view New Atheism with the same disdain as I view fundamentalism. It's a different side of the same coin. The idea that you can eradicate religion is a dream. And telling people that they're deficient for believing in God is just as intolerant as an evangelist telling you you're going to hell because you don't believe. @ceorl @Tacitus_Kilgore
@LiberalLibrarian @ceorl @Tacitus_Kilgore
I don't think we disagree!
That's my point: New Atheism illustrated perfectly how much the affectation of "rationalism" is nonsense - but it was *so* beloved by its operators, on all sides of the debate circuits at that time.
Everyone was *so* convinced that eloquent argument would somehow bring the truth so perfectly to bear on the world that everyone would have no choice but to believe it.
Pure bullpucky, but a great education in flawed thinking!
@MLClark Precisely. Fundamentalism is inherently flawed, whether religious or secular. @ceorl @Tacitus_Kilgore
No author - I'm referring to the whole flawed spectacle of the era. Even well-intended thinkers tended to get caught up in the charisma of performance, and their elevated platforms also made these humans deeply vulnerable to conflating positions that already aligned with cultural preference with self-evidently rational perspectives.
(Harris, for sure. Hitchens, Dawkins, Pinker, and Shermer, too. It is VERY easy to rest on one's laurels when widely acclaimed for them.)
(And I say that with no animus toward any of them. Celebrity does weird things to human beings - rarely good for their critical thinking in the long run.)
As an atheist who tries not to be dismissive, I certainly hope that it's possible! 🤞😬
In all seriousness, I focus more on secular humanism, because I find that arguing over baseline cosmology isn't as important as asking what each of us *does* with our respective cosmologies. That said, I'm sorely chuffed to know that O'Connell's still doing a good job holding the line respectfully in the realm of atheist/theist discourse.
@MLClark I agree. It's not that I hang on their every word, but they do manage to stimulate the thought process in my brain to encourage me to think on my own. Daniel Dennett, RIP, was one in particular I loved listening to, because I didn't always agree with his ideas but it allowed me to formulate my own thoughts. @ceorl
Dennett gave me one of my favourite quotes:
"There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view I hold dear."
That expression has always pushed me to question my initial assumptions and put my argumentation through the wringer before anyone else can, *especially* when the topic means a lot to me.
That said, Dennett is flat-out wrong on free will. :) Fearing the consequences of society *not* believing in free will isn't a good argument for its actual existence!
I like that quote. It completely divorces argument from truth.
I'm also quite entertained by CoSo right now, one tier of users still tossing inflammatory rhetoric back and forth, another tier debating argument abstractly, and other tiers cracking jokes about Big Hair :)
At parties I hang out with the dogs, and observe :)
The dogs know where it's at. :)
(Now I need to go find the Big Hair threads I missed.)
I firmly believe we don't have free will. We're just not fully conscious of all the habituated biochemistry that creates our probability map of possible outputs in response to new stimuli.
So, for all intents and purposes, we can still "surprise" ourselves with our actions... but it's all just environmental interactions.
And yet, despite Dennett's fear that this would lead to mayhem, I think I do okay with seeing myself as meat operating on a probability spectrum. :)
Okay, this was a pretty cool conversation, Tacitus. :)
Glad to have made your acquaintance with it!
@MLClark I agree. It is very difficult to have meaningful discourse online. It is far to easy to get your back up when sitting in front of a computer screen where you are unseen. We lose our ability for reading expression and body language.
@MLClark I think sometimes we try to hard to be the "adult in the room". I realize the argument for "now isn't the time" is a respectful position to take, but then you have to ask; When is a good time? If misinformation or disinformation is rearing it's ugly head my opinion is that it is our responsibility, our duty to call it out. The key is on how you deliver it. If your combative then it will be combative. Maintaining reason and calm is best. It isn't easy, but it is necessary.