/sci/ - Science & Math

I would say it's /sci/'s single shared pet peeve.

Reason is like 1/3 of how people interpret arguments.

Lrn2 rhetorical triangle.

>girls and women

Not really. Most people don't want to hold purely irrational opinions. At that point, if you can confirm that there's no facts or evidence behind it, they will think again about it and change their mind. It might take a few different conversations, though, for most people don't want to change their mind too fast.

>>3910802
what happens to me is often people will just walk away or say something like "I don't feel like arguing about it"
So yes, people often do want to hold irrational opinions

>>3910807

Are you sure it's not because you're taking a point of disagreement as a axiom, preventing it's validity from being discussed?

>>3910802
>t, if you can confirm that there's no facts or evidence behind it, they will think again about it and change their mind.

except it won't be an abrupt change. it's a slow and steady shift in the other direction.

if someone's prolife and hears arguments from choice. they don't immediately turn prochoice. They first accept certain exceptions to their general rule and then initiate further compromise before effectively labelling themselves prochoice.

>>3910807
Walking away isn't necessarily a bad thing. Like >>3910898 said, they might need some time alone before they can openly adopt a new opinion.

>>3910898
cont.

people generally want to do the right thing. it's not that they're stubborn. it's more about maintaining your reputation and respect of others. everyone wants to save face. no one wants to be a accused of flipflopping. Quite often people have built up entire careers on a lie (faulty reasoning). In that case, they may never admit they are wrong/misguided. (William Lane Craig)

if you change your stance immediately people will think you can be convinced by any old tosh.

>implying there is any objective evidence to be discovered and propositions to be proved
>implying debates aren't just big language games

>>3910986
Sophists are the worst types of people.

>>3911019
>I really don't know what to say to this guy.
>We'll just give him a name and be done with it.

No.

It's pretty easy to not induce an emotional reaction in someone or make it obvious someone is a troll just by speaking logically with clear step by step statements, the biggest problem is the dunning kruger effect, when people literally do not have the intelligence to understand their error, or at least there is no way to teach them within a practical period of time.

>>3911035
thats not the dunning kruger effect.

Try again.

inb4 STOOPID WIMMINZ

>>3911062


Well played.

>>3910763

the clearest most useful thing that /sci/ and 4chan has taught me (besides successful trolling) is that people will never accept an explanation they can't understand, or one that's too big, subtle or disturbing to accept. I don't push the point if I see that (unless I'm trolling successfully).

>>3911033
That's partly it.
People may hold the best well reasoned opinion but if they don't also have powers of persuasion, it means jackshit.

the postcard is a joke but almost everyone is guilty of basing their reasoning on emotion as opposed to rationality, even here.

if you think rationally about social issues like racism, sexuality and person of freedom you will often come out with results which will disgust most people. these will just admit that it disgusts them and will reject them, everyone else will subconsciously argue with themselves and will never admit they are rationally wrong.

>>3911111

quints means it's true. (how's that for a logical point?)

>>3911062
>>3911080
Dunning-kruger effect = Dummies don't understand how they have made a mistake while smart people realize their limitations, as a result dumb people have more confidence in their abilities.

My statement = Dummies don't understand how they have made a mistake

Can you explain what I've said that's so terribly wrong?

>>3911160
You're ...demonstrating... irony.

Classic. 9/10

>>3911174
I lol'd.
Hopefully he's not an aspie.

>>3911174
>>3911194
At least make the effort to explain why I'm wrong before declaring I don't understand it.

But yeah, you trolling.

>>3911160

The dunning kruger effect has an emotional part to it you retard, which is what you said it wouldn't be in the same sentence.