Changing someone's mind is very difficult, that's why I like puzzles most people get wrong: to try to open their mind. Challenging the claim that 2+2
is unequivocally 4
is one of my favorites to get people to reconsider what they think is true with 100% certainty.
2+2 = not what you think
felipec.substack.com
- 204
- -34
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No it won't.
Obvious circular reasoning. You believe
X
is false, and you say it's possible for you to be convinced thatX
is true ifX
were true, butX
is false, because you believeX
is false. Could not be more obvious.Do you accept the possibility that
X
may be true? Yes or no.Now you're making an unsupported assumption about my character instead of an argument. Retract it and apologize.
No, I proved X is false separately. "X is false, because I believe X is false" is not an argument I've made.
No. X is a mathematical claim, and it's proven false.
Note that if you make a new argument I will consider the possibility again while analyzing your argument.
You just accepted your mind cannot possibly be changed below.
That's the end of the road then.
I accepted that my mind cannot be changed on a proven statement. This naturally excludes the possibility of a convincing argument. But in the general case, my mind can be changed.
No, it remains to convince you that X is false.
If there was a person willing to engage in open debate who I had a chance to convince, sadly there's none. There is no point in debate if one side is completely closed off.
I'm willing to engage in open debate with you, and your chance to convince me depends on the correctness of your position. You can't expect to convince anyone if you don't have a point. An open mind does not require me to ignore knowledge I have.*
If you refuse to talk further when you turn out to be wrong, you will never learn anything.
*And you don't see it, but I did some research to verify my position before responding. Do you insist Russell should doubt 1+1=2 after writing PM?
And if you make a new argument, I will do more research to refute it.
And who decides the correctness of my position? You. So in order for me to be able to convince you that
X
may be true, I first have to convince you thatX
may be true, butX
cannot be true, because you have decided that the position thatX
may be true is not correct, why? BecauseX
cannot be true.How is this not the definition of circular reasoning?
The correctness of your position is a matter of fact. No one decides it, we research it. I have done so and found out it's not correct. If I happened to be wrong about that, there would be convincing counterarguments you could make, proving me wrong. But I notice you're not even trying to argue X anymore.
It's the definition of a strawman. I have not made the circle of reasoning you describe. I have proven that X is not true, separately.
According to you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link