Post #4334746
2026-08-02 17:09 UTC
@bemmesr@mathstodon.xyz Ages ago I tried to insist on some basics before moving on, but it was no use (and I was shown to be a paper tiger because I got dragged back in) because even for what I considered to be extremely basic facts he wouldn't agree... in that scenario the problem I faced was that discovering more of the contents of his mind was worth more to me than sticking to such principles.
In an ordinary debate, the other person would usually have an interest in keeping you engaged, so you can exercise some leverage.
Replies (1)
-
@bemmesr@mathstodon.xyz 2026-08-02 17:22
@FishFace@ioc.exchange this is where the Socratic method is supposed to shine. Instead of attempting to lay the groundwork yourself, have your interlocutor explicitly state their assumptions, recursively, until an error is revealed. Unfortunately, almost everyone holds inconsistent beliefs, so the technique doesn't necessarily say as much about the subject matter as it does about the nature of human belief. Still, it's tempting to try it. I don't really know how effective it is in practice...