My new meta-debate hammer, anti-dogmatism

[icehorse]

Call me reductionist if you will, but I'm seeing a common thread across many ideas or opinions or behaviors with which I disagree. The common thread I'm seeing is dogmatism. For years my RF avatar read "anti-theist". That's still true for me, but I think a broader perspective is "anti-dogmatist".

There's a blindingly obvious truism that I first heard from Sam Harris. (AFAIK he does NOT claim to be the creator of this truism.):

"Humans have come up with two basic ways to settle disputes; talking it out, or violence."

As a general rule, when a person is behaving dogmatically, they are shutting down the possibility of "talking it out". So I'll claim that dogmatism often leads to violence.

And I see dogmatism coming from all corners of social, political, religious spectrums. The DEI folks are often dogmatic. The MAGA types as well. Religious people almost by definition.

With all that said, I also acknowledge that I think we need a few unfalsifiable, philosophical axioms to have any sort of discussion at all. I acknowledge I have mine. But I'm willing to admit to these axioms and I'm willing to revise them if I see good evidence.

So, long story short, I think we should all call out the dogmatists wherever and whenever we see them

 

[Heyo]

Call me reductionist if you will, but I'm seeing a common thread across many ideas or opinions or behaviors with which I disagree. The common thread I'm seeing is dogmatism. For years my RF avatar read "anti-theist". That's still true for me, but I think a broader perspective is "anti-dogmatist".

There's a blindingly obvious truism that I first heard from Sam Harris. (AFAIK he does NOT claim to be the creator of this truism.):

"Humans have come up with two basic ways to settle disputes; talking it out, or violence."

As a general rule, when a person is behaving dogmatically, they are shutting down the possibility of "talking it out". So I'll claim that dogmatism often leads to violence.

And I see dogmatism coming from all corners of social, political, religious spectrums. The DEI folks are often dogmatic. The MAGA types as well. Religious people almost by definition.

With all that said, I also acknowledge that I think we need a few unfalsifiable, philosophical axioms to have any sort of discussion at all. I acknowledge I have mine. But I'm willing to admit to these axioms and I'm willing to revise them if I see good evidence.

So, long story short, I think we should all call out the dogmatists wherever and whenever we see them

How do you discern between dogmatists and people holding "unfalsifiable, philosophical axioms"?

 

[Yerda]

"Humans have come up with two basic ways to settle disputes; talking it out, or violence."

Sam forgot rock, paper, scissors.

 

[Augustus]

Call me reductionist if you will, but I'm seeing a common thread across many ideas or opinions or behaviors with which I disagree. The common thread I'm seeing is dogmatism. For years my RF avatar read "anti-theist". That's still true for me, but I think a broader perspective is "anti-dogmatist".

There's a blindingly obvious truism that I first heard from Sam Harris. (AFAIK he does NOT claim to be the creator of this truism.):

"Humans have come up with two basic ways to settle disputes; talking it out, or violence."

As a general rule, when a person is behaving dogmatically, they are shutting down the possibility of "talking it out". So I'll claim that dogmatism often leads to violence.

And I see dogmatism coming from all corners of social, political, religious spectrums. The DEI folks are often dogmatic. The MAGA types as well. Religious people almost by definition.

With all that said, I also acknowledge that I think we need a few unfalsifiable, philosophical axioms to have any sort of discussion at all. I acknowledge I have mine. But I'm willing to admit to these axioms and I'm willing to revise them if I see good evidence.

So, long story short, I think we should all call out the dogmatists wherever and whenever we see them

How would you differentiate between a dogmatically held opinion and one someone holds based on what they consider good reasons, albeit one that we disagree with?

All of us likely hold opinions that we think are reasonable, but are held 'dogmatically' due to biases, assumptions, etc. and are largely impervious to reason.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Call me reductionist if you will, but I'm seeing a common thread across many ideas or opinions or behaviors with which I disagree. The common thread I'm seeing is dogmatism. For years my RF avatar read "anti-theist". That's still true for me, but I think a broader perspective is "anti-dogmatist".

There's a blindingly obvious truism that I first heard from Sam Harris. (AFAIK he does NOT claim to be the creator of this truism.):

"Humans have come up with two basic ways to settle disputes; talking it out, or violence."

As a general rule, when a person is behaving dogmatically, they are shutting down the possibility of "talking it out". So I'll claim that dogmatism often leads to violence.

And I see dogmatism coming from all corners of social, political, religious spectrums. The DEI folks are often dogmatic. The MAGA types as well. Religious people almost by definition.

With all that said, I also acknowledge that I think we need a few unfalsifiable, philosophical axioms to have any sort of discussion at all. I acknowledge I have mine. But I'm willing to admit to these axioms and I'm willing to revise them if I see good evidence.

So, long story short, I think we should all call out the dogmatists wherever and whenever we see them

Well, you are dogmatic for claiming we. I have no evidence that your "we" is a "we" for humanity.
We will end up in the sociology concerning we and them. That is the problem and we have been there before.

 

[PureX]

The dogmatist can't be wrong.

There is no "talking it out" when the person you're talking with can't be wrong. They don't listen to anything you say except to reject and dismiss it by any means they can muster. And to try just becomes an exhausting waste of time and energy.

I see and run into this all the time on this site. And interestingly, often from the very people that think of and proclaim themselves as being exceptionally reasonable. And that decry endlessly the dogmatism of those who see and understand the world differently from them.

Dogmatism is ideological self-righteousness that has reached the point of intellectual blindness. It's egotism running rampant over the intellect. And it's a sad thing to encounter such a closed mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The dogmatist can't be wrong.

There is no "talking it out" when the person you're talking with can't be wrong. They don't listen to anything you say except to reject and dismiss it by any means they can muster. And to try just becomes an exhausting waste of time and energy.

I see and run into this all the time on this site. And interestingly, often from the very people that think of and proclaim themselves as being exceptionally reasonable. And that decry endlessly the dogmatism of those who see and understand the world differently from them.

Dogmatism is ideological self-righteousness that has reached the point of intellectual blindness. It's egotism running rampant over the intellect. And it's a sad thing to encounter such a closed mind.

Well, you do it in a limited sense in that you overdo logic and in a sense am dogmatic about logic. I do it about the absurd, so I am no better.

 

[icehorse]

How do you discern between dogmatists and people holding "unfalsifiable, philosophical axioms"?

And @Augustus

Usually it boils down to whether they're forthcoming about it or not. For example, I take the golden rule as one of my axioms. I believe in it, but I cannot prove it's part of how we ought to live. But I admit I cannot prove it. OTOH, most (not all), dogmatists are not forthcoming concerning their dogma.

Second, I'm more than happy to entertain ideas that conflict with my axioms.

So again, it boils down to whether a person is truly open for discussion or not.

 

[icehorse]

Well, you are dogmatic for claiming we. I have no evidence that your "we" is a "we" for humanity.
We will end up in the sociology concerning we and them. That is the problem and we have been there before.

Would you agree that "we" need oxygen to survive?

 

[Jimmy]

Everybody’s their own authority so getting rid of dogmas a useless endeavor. Unfortunately people disagree.

 

[icehorse]

Everybody’s their own authority so getting rid of dogmas a useless endeavor. Unfortunately people disagree.

Lots of people are like this, but not all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Would you agree that "we" need oxygen to survive?

Yeah, in a limited sense for same, but we are also different, so if I don't get oxygen, then you necessarily don't die. See, even that "we" have a limit.
That is what I mean with limits to a "we".

 

[Jimmy]

Lots of people are like this, but not all.

Wherever you stand on abortion is your authority, so yeah all.

 

[icehorse]

Wherever you stand on abortion is your authority, so yeah all.

For many people abortion is a complex issue and they are uncertain. This is true for many people about many topics.

 

[Jimmy]

For many people abortion is a complex issue and they are uncertain. This is true for many people about many topics.

Murder? I don’t think so

 

[icehorse]

Murder? I don’t think so

wait, what?

 

[Jimmy]

wait, what?

All know murder is wrong. Everyone has an opinion on self defense. How bout spittin in a strangers face? Is anyone uncertain about if that’s right or wrong?

 

[icehorse]

Murder? I don’t think so

wait, what?

 

[icehorse]

All know murder is wrong. Everyone has an opinion on self defense. How bout spittin in a strangers face? Is anyone uncertain about if that’s right or wrong?

Ah! Well that gets back to the idea of philosophical axioms.

 

[Jimmy]

For many people abortion is a complex issue and they are uncertain. This is true for many people about many topics.

It’s basically all people. The few who are undecided will be eventually and if they never form an opinion then who cares. So what’s your point? You have a problem with the word all?