Communicating Ideas

Metaphysics and Epistemology
1

I was reading OPAR, and I had just read the sections on Knowledge in Context, and the Hierarchy of Knowledge. The methods offered in those sections are Integration and Reduction.

Integration relates all conclusions with one another, and Reduction makes sure that facts are traced back to reality/sense data. Most people think in the sense that there is brain activity, and that they do come to conclusions, however, many people, in many different fields are not objective. Integration and Reduction are both needed to endure objectivity.

It occurred to me, that I for the longest time was trying to use logic as a means of coercion, that instead of trying to achieve an integrated set of concepts, I was trying to gain the perfect mixture of arguments that would satisfy myself and others. Peikoff did mention this earlier in that chapter. The problem with this is obvious with the above ideas in mind. An idea can’t be expressed in its fullest form to anyone. You can make a pretty good blue print, but you can’t batter your conclusions into someone by winning arguments. Even if they recognize certain rules of discourse, and will accept when they have lost an argument, that doesn’t mean that they will do anything useful with the conclusion that they have grudgingly accepted.

Arguing or just communicating ideas with people can be very difficult because they can be blatantly evasive or because they simply do not have the context to speak about that subject with you. For instance, lets say a communist comes up to you and wants to debate capitalism vs communism. Why? What is that going to gain for either party? The communist most likely hasn’t integrated anything philosophical, and especially hasn’t reduced those ideas back to sense data. So even if you “win” the argument for capitalism, you are just going to pile a floating abstraction onto someone who most likely has a materialist metaphysics and epistemology, and a pragmatist/egalitarian ethical mindset (presto!, another libertarian populates the planet).

Now if the communist happened to believe in a rational(ish) philosophy, it might not be so bad, they might actually learn something. But that is unlikely as even most “capitalists” don’t know anything about capitalism, hell I don’t think I know anything about capitalism anymore.

Do you need to share the same hierarchy/context for knowledge to actually communicate with someone about anything? Who can we actually communicate ideas with?

2

“Do you need to share the same hierarchy/context for knowledge to actually communicate with someone about anything? Who can we actually communicate ideas with?”

Let me first say that you have a very important discovery and you are absolutely right. To communicate ideas we have to think about context of the person you are dealing with. But we don’t have to share more or less the same context to be able to communicate our ideas objectively to others. You have to know where is coming from and address his arguments and questions from that angle.

We usually do this most of the time without thinking much about it. You don’t talk the same way about economics to George Reisman as you would have when you talk to someone who does not know anything about economics. You don’t talk, in general, the same way to children as you would have to adults. You recognize the difference of context and try to approach it differently; you ask different questions, give different examples, different amount of elaboration, etc. But when it comes to arguing for or against ideas it can be a good thing to think about this consciously.

So here is my advice if you want to achieve (greater) objectivity when communicating with someone with another context: try to figure out why people hold certain views; what are their main arguments or premises. Think of how you can address these arguments or premises before you procede to argue for your point of view. Most of the time the reason they hold certain ideas will be obvious, but sometimes you have to ask them why they hold certain beliefs. Just ask them: “Why do you believe in X? What made you concerned about issue Y? What are your arguments?”

Classical example: If you want to communicate the idea that environmentalism is evil to a person who have bought into the whole environmentalist craze, then the first step is not to say: “Well, environmentalism are haters of man because they are against the industrial revolution”. This is true but the normal environmentalist will usually not have a clue of what you are talking about. If anything you will come across as a loony. It is way more common that they are environmentalists because they really believe that science have “proven” that there are serious environmental issues that we have to deal with.

Thus the first thing to address is the issue of the alleged scientific case for environmental concerns. Show him how most if not all of the science is bad (the studies they refer to have weak statistical correlations, they almost always confuse correlation for causation, they don’t recognize that the dose makes the poison, they don’t recognize that what is poisonous for rodents is not necessarily poisonous for humans, they engage in the arbitrary when they argue for the precautionary principle, etc). Give him some examples to illustrate this point (e.g., DDT, the Alar scare, “the population bomb”, the unscientific case against nuclear power). Refer him to some books on the issue. Once the main reason he bought into the environmentalist craze is undermined, he have a reason to start questioning his premises. Where you procede from here is up to you, but the point is that no matter what you do next, it is crucial to recognize the main reason someone bought into a certain idea and then give that idea a deadly blow.

Another classical example: If you want to communicate the idea that altruism is wrong to a deeply religious Christian, then it does not matter one iota how many arguments you offer against altruism, because the reason he believes in altruism is because of his religious views. So the basic issue here is not altruism; it is whether God exists or not or even more fundamentally: faith vs reason. This is the issue you have to deal with, before you even attempt to argue against altruism with this guy. So what you do is that, on the premise that he is open for logic and reason in the first place, then you have to ask him why he believes in God.

3

Great reply from Knast.

Do you need to share the same hierarchy/context for knowledge to actually communicate with someone about anything?

You don’t have to share the whole “tree”, but you have to understand his relevant “sub-tree” and then “plug” into it at a point of relative agreement. One big problem is that people use concepts differently. So, when you talk of “X” you mean a certain set of referents, while the other person means something else. Understanding what the person means by the terms he uses is part of understanding his “sub-tree”. So: listen, ask questions, understand his sub-tree, and “plug in” at the right spot.

If the other person is far from your viewpoint, you will not convince them in a few sessions of to and fro. Even if the person realizes you are making a good point, he will want to think it through for himself, to chew on it quietly, away from the “debate floor”, just by himself. So, if possible, take a longer term perspective. You might have to spend a few discussions simply being socratic: understanding what they are saying and pointing out some flaws in their framework. Often, people have thought about a topic up to a certain level, and if you prod a little in some soft spots, they will go away, think the thing through and come back with a more polished view. often, they will actually firm up their current position, because they will refine what they actually mean. In doing so, they will have clarified their “sub-tree” to themselves, and also made the actual points of disagreement much more clear.

4

Then there is the case that I have seen many times and never been able to figure out.

Reasonably intelligent person with complete opposite views.

Over a period of time and discussion they come to acknowledge that all your arguments re:altruism, religion, rational self interest, environment, capitalism, why welfare doesn’t work, etc seem to be correct and their beliefs seem to be based on faulty premises.

And then…

They say “but I just can’t live that way its wrong, even if it is correct”

I’ve heard it a few times and each time I feel as though I’ve been hit in the gut with a battering ram.

Point being… you can completely convince someone and have them still choose blindness.

5

I think the biggest problem in polarized discussions is staying on topic.

The most important way to stay on and keep the other person on topic is to spend time up front making sure you are both clear on exactly what the topic is. The best way I know of to secure this clarity is to give a few examples of both sides of the issue.

If the issue were altruism vs. selfishness, you would want to come up with three or more cases you both agree are altruism, and three or more cases you both agree are selfishness.

If you can’t state your case in one sentence, you probably aren’t ready to argue it. Each time you make your point, consult that one sentence, which keeps you on subject. Each point the opponent makes, relate it to their initial claim. You ought to be able to see immediately if it is on point, or digressive, (though associated.) Don’t allow digressions. Require that each of you responds to what the other has actually said.

Truth isn’t that hard to substantiate if you both stay on the subject. Getting your opponent to do so is the real work.

– Mindy

6

Thanks for the response. What I have gathered from this is that any discussion of idea needs to be framed in a certain context, and can’t be allowed to freely move. It has to be controlled consciously in order to maintain its objectivity.

Although I found Mindy’s post ironic, it is helpful

7

Thanks for the response. What I have gathered from this is that any discussion of idea needs to be framed in a certain context, and can’t be allowed to freely move. It has to be controlled consciously in order to maintain its objectivity.

Although I found Mindy’s post ironic, it is helpful

Now, you must explain how I was unwittingly ironic.

My summary position is that reason is so powerful, and man’s nature as a thinker so hard to fully corrupt that where there is enough cooperation to stay on topic and be responsive to one another, very little else is needed. (Yes, I know the Obj. Communication tapes, and establishing the audience’s context is important, but we do most of that by reflex.) So, I find an orderly dialogue that stays on topic succeeds by its own lights.

– Mindy

8

Now, you must explain how I was unwittingly ironic.

My summary position is that reason is so powerful, and man’s nature as a thinker so hard to fully corrupt that where there is enough cooperation to stay on topic and be responsive to one another, very little else is needed. (Yes, I know the Obj. Communication tapes, and establishing the audience’s context is important, but we do most of that by reflex.) So, I find an orderly dialogue that stays on topic succeeds by its own lights.

– Mindy

It was a minor point, not a crticism, that you were talking about staying on topic, when your idea was a digression. Not that it wasn’t helpful.

9

Point being… you can completely convince someone and have them still choose blindness.

That’s why I often see little value in entering many discussions on subjects like capitalism. Sure, you may even get a person to agree with what you’re saying, but that could change even a year later. Really, the only times to enter a discussion is if the person seems reasonable enough. The best route for your own sake is probably to give them a few points to consider, and if you REALLY know your topic, you can convey essential ideas in a few sentences. Still, if you really want someone to accept your ideas, the only approach that would work is a long-term one, something which can only be done with people you see everyday that you value highly. Don’t just have discussions, though. With your routine interactions with these people, show and explain what it means to use the principles you agree with. No, you don’t need to be preachy about it, just occasionally say in a sentence or two why you did something in particular.

10

It was a minor point, not a crticism, that you were talking about staying on topic, when your idea was a digression. Not that it wasn’t helpful.

I wasn’t complaining. Feel free to find fault. But, :confused: I still don’t see it. :dough:

– Mindy