Perspective

[Coolydudey]

They always say that the truth is only one; indeed, it seems reasonable to assume that any two truths must be logically consistent with each other. While there is no proof the universe is logical (prove me wrong here if you think otherwise), I will assume the above statement.

Therefore, in any argument, the clash of two perspectives, either one or both parties are wrong (or not entirely right). So we have some questions... If we so wish, what is the best way to bring the other party to our perspective? The Socratic method? Something else entirely? What's the best way to identify logical fallacies in others arguments? And finally, how should we go about gaining a perspective of an excessively complex system that cannot be completely modelled? Clearly, there will be inaccuracies, but how can we get closest to the truth?

 

[Cognisant]

They always say that the truth is only one; indeed, it seems reasonable to assume that any two truths must be logically consistent with each other. While there is no proof the universe is logical (prove me wrong here if you think otherwise), I will assume the above statement.

You're not strictly wrong but I would be very careful about aguing the case for subjectivity, y'see it goes both ways, especially existential subjectivity, if you use subjectivity as an excuse to ignore evidence that conflicts with your theories because it dosen't outright disprove them then your opponents in a debate can do the same to your evidence which dosen't disprove theirs, and when you run out of evidence to lose before they do then they'll take your credibility instead.

This is more or less how the scientific community works, it's vicious, every touted expert stands upon a pile of those who he or she has personally discredited and metaphorically swears alliegance to whichever theories they believe most valid if they don't have theories of their own to supplant them, it's a never ending war for intellectual domination and the only long term winners are those that discover something irrefutable.

So we have some questions... If we so wish, what is the best way to bring the other party to our perspective? The Socratic method? Something else entirely?

Be right.
How to win a war: be on the winning side.

What's the best way to identify logical fallacies in others arguments?

Experience.
What makes a great warrior: training.

And finally, how should we go about gaining a perspective of an excessively complex system that cannot be completely modelled? Clearly, there will be inaccuracies, but how can we get closest to the truth?

 

[Chad]

They always say that the truth is only one; indeed, it seems reasonable to assume that any two truths must be logically consistent with each other. While there is no proof the universe is logical (prove me wrong here if you think otherwise), I will assume the above statement.

Therefore, in any argument, the clash of two perspectives, either one or both parties are wrong (or not entirely right). So we have some questions... If we so wish, what is the best way to bring the other party to our perspective? The Socratic method? Something else entirely? What's the best way to identify logical fallacies in others arguments? And finally, how should we go about gaining a perspective of an excessively complex system that cannot be completely modelled? Clearly, there will be inaccuracies, but how can we get closest to the truth?

I agree with your perspective on truth but I also believe there are two different types of truths. Personal truths and absolute truth.

As far as absolute truth is concerned I general assume my understanding of truth and the others understanding are both wrong. There for it's not about getting the other person to believe what I believe or visa versa. Most people understand at least a portion of what is truth. Therefore its always important to listen to what others have to say. However, listening and doing what someone says is two different things. This is why I never try to shut someone up (unless they are on a different topic) even if I don't agree with them. However, my reaction is still my responsibility therefore I will always react how I best see fit not how someone else see fits.

I like to learn for everyone so no matter who I am speaking with I try to take away some truth form there perspective. Therefore improving my own perspective. I believe everyone can improve there perspective of absolute truth however, I don't believe we can find it.

This is most do the the fact that know one really know what absolute truth looks like. Therefore even if you accidentally randomly stubble upon the understanding of absolute truth you have no way of discerning that the truth you found was indeed absolute truth.

Personal truth is far harder to deal with. Something can be true for one person and not be true for another person due to inward and outward factors making every person different.

My favorite example of this is Alcohol (drinking Ethanol). I don't believe that the act of drinking Alcohol is any way wrong or immoral. However, I would say that me drinking alcohol would be both wrong and immoral. This is for two reasons, 1) I hate the taste of Ethanol and I would only be drinking it purely for the effect of intoxication and I would hate it the whole time.
2) I have a genetic family history of alcohol abuse and alcoholism giving me a high risk of developing alcoholism. (I have also notices tendencies in myself of addictive nature)

Does this mean Alcohol is a bad thing and everyone that drinks alcohol is a bad person. No, it doesn't. All it means is that I shouldn't drink Alcohol. I know this and it is the reason I refuse alcohol unless its would be offensive for me to do so. (This only happen once at a friends wedding and I drank during my toast and then just let it sit)

 

[Hadoblado]

Be charitable and communicate clearly. Since you are already having a disagreement, you must have a reason to think they're wrong in the first place (otherwise you'd agree). Identify precisely how your opinions differ, and justify why your understanding is better. If you cannot do this, and you don't think you can achieve this with continued effort, begin to consider whether you're wrong.

There is no quick fix to winning at debate, learning formal logic helps to build your own positions, and gives a platform on which to form arguments against others, but that is beyond the scope of a post to communicate.

 

[Coolydudey]

1) Bringing someone to your perspective

Those who are right often don't win arguments, especially if said arguments are timed or rushed. Bringing someone to your viewpoint, whether it is correct or not, is the art of convincing. This requires a surprising blend of logic, often appeal to emotion, and above all, phrasing. I find that a well-said argument that starts from common ground and seems logically sound is very convincing.

2) As for spotting logical fallacies?

You need to be on your guard, and have some experience. If you're careful though, you should be able to tell when the other person is being an idiot.

3) So what's the best way to be right?

I have no idea...