I say; 1 + 1 = 3.
You say; "no it doesn't" ... end of conversation.
Or, you say, "how do you figure that?"
I say, "three separate but equal entities: the first 1, the second 1, and the combined 1's. That's a triplex result, not a duplex result."
You say. "I disagree" ... end of conversation.
Or, you say "but that's not how math works!"
I say, "I'm not doing math. I'm doing philosophy."
And so on.
I consider a conversation like that to be pointless. There is no rebuttal there, just dissent and pointless verbiage following it, and so, no dialectic. No progress can be made in such a discussion, and no differences resolved. A rebuttal is a comment that contradicts the comment rebutted in a specific way, namely, a comment that contradicts the claim in such a way that the claim and its rebuttal cannot both be correct.
The proper rebuttal to 1+1=3 is that 1+1=2, with an explanation if needed why the latter is a correct sum. Look at all of the other kinds of responses you suggest. None makes any progress in resolving the difference of opinion. Only rebuttal addresses the source of the dissent, and only rebuttal has a chance of resolving any differences. There is nothing else to say to 1+1=3 than some form of 1+1=2, the rebuttal, which never appears in your example.
Consider our discussion:
You: You should open yourself up to God
Me: I've done that before and found it to be of no value.
You: But there is great value.
Me: Show me
You: [crickets]
*discussion dies*
The point of this kind of discussion/debate is not to "win" (to be right). It's to understand and scrutinize other methods and results of perceiving and experiencing truth. It's based on the idea that there is no one right way. And that it's better to know multiple ways of perceiving and understanding 'truth' than it is to hold onto one 'right' one. Do you want to be right? Or do you want to understand how I (a non-religious theist) can arrive at a different idea of 'rightness'?
I agree with the first sentence, but none of the ones following it. Dialectic is a cooperative activity between two or more critical thinkers trying to resolve differences in opinion. The two go back to their point of departure and work forward using the same rules of reason. In your example, the point of departure becomes apparent as soon as somebody says 1+1=3 to somebody who believes it equals two. Since they are both skilled critical thinkers, the 1+1=3 guy either immediately sees the error he has made, or there is a common method for them to understand that 1+1=2. This is not a struggle or a competition, and there are no losers, just one winner - the guy who got enlightened, and he is happy to be shown his error.
This is a completely different psychology from what we commonly see here, where this process is framed as attacking, trying to vanquish another, and where rebuttal is extremely rare, making forward progress in most conversations impossible. Look at the discussion you outlined above, where no progress will ever be made. Look at our own discussions. You tell me how great a god belief would be for me, I rebut that by saying that I've been there and found the opposite to be the case. It's a rebuttal because we can't both be right - either there is value there for me or there is not. I ask for evidence that makes me wrong - I'm telling you how to rebut my position, and you never do. That's where the discussion ends. Did I win? Well, I prevailed, since I made the last plausible comment that wasn't rebutted, but I didn't win anything. If this were dialectic, you'd be happy to cooperate. You'd either produce that evidence or have to relent and agree that I might be right - there is nothing there for me - rather than do what you do, which is to keep making the rebutted claim without addressing the rebuttal of it. And we would part friends and pleased with our cooperation in dialectic.
As far as understanding others, I've already explained to you that I understand what faith-based thought is, and how it has no value to me. I've also made an attempt to understanding you, as when I repeated that I believe your religious beliefs are part of an adaptation to dealing with the uncertainty of a history of alcoholism addressed by a 12-step program. Naturally, you added nothing to suggest that you agreed or disagreed, so I am still assuming that that is correct. And I've explained to you that I wouldn't jeopardize that if I could. How much more understanding do you want? I used the glasses analogy - several times - but as usual, you choose not to cooperate. You just ignore it. How much more productive if you would ever say, "I see your point now" or "I disagree because [rebuttal here]." The point is that I make a sincere effort to understand you, but you don't cooperate. You won't participate in dialectic, where we would take that matter to a resolution. We could come to some type of mutual understanding. But no. I suspect it's because you do view this as a war, and want to play it close to the vest - the opposite of the spirit of dialectic.
And you know I disagree with you about multiple truths. Not all ideas are true. Many are wrong or not even wrong (unfalsifiable). People claiming to have spiritual or religious truths are routinely rejected for failing to explain what these are, or what makes them true. I understand them. I understand what motivates them. I just don't accept their opinions because I don't respect the way they come to them.
I also understand that there are other ways that work better, in certain situations. The question to you is do you want to try and understand them?
Do you want to demonstrate them and why you think that they are better? You keep framing this as my closed-mindedness, but whenever I ask for whatever you have to support your contentions, you offer nothing. What do you think is the proper way to understand that? What do you think I have concluded about your position? You should know by now.
Do you want me to be wrong?
No. I want you to participate in dialectic. I want one of us to help the other learn something. You're not doing your part, and neither of us is learning anything from the other, just about the other. You don't learn from me, and you learn nothing from you. And both of these are because you won't engage at the level of rebuttal, and won't answer the questions asked, such as where is you evidence.
do you want to try and understand how I am right?
Here you go again. I am learning nothing from you because you offer nothing, then frame it as a lack of effort on my part. Do you want to try to explain why you think you are right rather than just claiming it? You've had a dozen posts to make that case, and you haven't tried yet.
I am responding to what I perceive to be an inquest.
That's on you. As I said, if you frame these interactions as adversarial, that's what you'll see. There is no inquest here. All you've ever gotten from me is comments like those in this thread. Inquiry, not inquest. Counterargument, not attack. Sincerely believed constructive criticism, not inquest. But you don't see the difference, and continue to dither in the same place. You're right where we were when we started this months ago, still making the same claims already rebutted, the rebuttal ignored.
The value of these discussions to me is to use them to help clarify my position on rebuttal and dialectic to those who share my values on the philosophy of argumentation. These are two concepts that I've only recently clarified in my own mind. In this post, I can define them and make my case for their exclusive use in debate. There is no higher form of discourse than dialectic, and no higher form of dissent than rebuttal. This discussion underscores that.
