The social-conformity phenomenon is most frequently exhibited by religious apologists, who don't have an incontrovertible fact to stand on.
Religious apologists—who don't have an incontrovertible fact to stand on—can be relied upon to ignore incontrovertible evidence. Depending on the forum, pointing out the inevitable fallacies, on which their counter-evidential fantasies are necessarily built, saves time and frustration.
"But even if adversarial criticism often incentivises conformity, this doesn’t make it wrong to look out for mistakes. After all, if we know that something is false, we do know more than before. Or so one might argue. However, spotting a mistake doesn’t automatically render an opposing claim true. If you convince me that p is false, I just know that: p is false. But it does not mean that q is true. As I see it, the idea that criticism is truth-conducive thrives on the idea that the number of possible claims about a given topic is finite."
Cherry-picking reliance on "I claim that's wrong, therefore my inculcated-invention exists" is mostly practiced by religious apologists, who don't have an incontrovertible fact to stand on.
"In philosophy at least, one is more likely to run into error than to hit the nail on the head. While this might seem frustrating, it can tell us something about the nature of philosophical claims: perhaps the point of philosophical arguments is not truth after all, but rather wisdom, or something like it."
In the case of philosophy: usually something like it. In the case of religious apologetics: repeatedly refuted, stubbornly-resistant failure to face mountains of incontrovertible evidence.
https://aeon.co/ideas/the-adversarial-culture-in-philosophy-does-not-serve-the-truth .
https://aeon.co/ideas/the-adversarial-culture-in-philosophy-does-not-serve-the-truth .
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.