Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Wednesday, May 1. 2019

Assumptions, postulates, and premises


AVI wrote briefly about the difficulty of constructive discussion with people with differing and strongly-held basic assumptions about things.


Assumptions, postulates, and premises are what we all stand on when we open a discussion, a debate, or a legal argument. Before getting into the weeds and details of a discussion, it's always wise to identify these foundations of anothers' position.


We all like to think that we are capable of questioning or critiquing our own basic assumptions - but are we?  I think most of us are as reluctant to impose cognitive dissonance on ourselves as we are to hit our heads with a hammer. 


And when others attempt to challenge (ie threaten) some of our precious basic assumptions, the natural reaction is to be defensive because these thoughts become part of who we are.


Best approach? "I'll question my assumptions if you'll question yours." 

Posted by Bird Dog in Fallacies and Logic at 17:20 | Comments (22) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I have and continue to question mine.

The problem with your approach--asking them to question theirs--is that so many people these days are "discussing" in bad faith--they are not discussing they are discoursing with no intent to let a new thought in their heads.
#1 William O'Blivion on 2019-05-02 00:25 (Reply)
If it is ridiculous to attack first principles, it is more ridiculous to defend them against these same attacks. - Lautreamont
#2 rhhardin (Link) on 2019-05-02 06:03 (Reply)
A good way to teach this is with mathematics. The first day of my junior year in high school, Mr. Moore walked into the room and wrote on the blackboard.

2+2=1

Then he asked the class if it was true. Of course, we said no. He said yes—if you know the postulates you are starting from, and the range and domain to which they apply. Then he added to the equation.

2 mod3 + 2 mod3 = 1 mod3

That fifteen-minute lecture stands out as top ten of the thousands I have heard. Always know the rules.
#3 Bruce Anderson on 2019-05-02 07:47 (Reply)
Bird Dog: Assumptions, postulates, and premises are what we all stand on when we open a discussion, a debate, or a legal argument. Before getting into the weeds and details of a discussion, it's always wise to identify these foundations of anothers' position.

This is a very important point.

Bird Dog: And when others attempt to challenge (ie threaten) some of our precious basic assumptions, the natural reaction is to be defensive because these thoughts become part of who we are.

1) That is why it is important to establish the fundamental assumptions of a position, yours or others.

2) Just because you may not hold the same fundamental assumptions of another, doesn't mean those assumptions don't have merit. However, identifying those fundamental assumptions is the only way to have a full understanding of a position.

3) Nor does not sharing one fundamental assumption mean that there are no other fundamental assumptions that may be shared; that is, there is likely common ground, though it may require going deeper into the fundamentals.

4) When people avoid the fundamentals, it indicates either lack of rigour in their thinking, or an aversion to confronting possible contradictions in their position.

This has always been our tack in discussions: identify fundamental assumptions and seek common ground.
#4 Zachriel on 2019-05-02 11:09 (Reply)
{We haven't been commenting because of incessant trolling. Our scribes can identify and block most of the trolls, but the trolls keep changing their names, including misappropriating our nick, which isn't subject to easy blocking. Nor is it fair to other readers to have to wade through multiple trolls to find content.}
#4.1 Zachriel on 2019-05-02 11:13 (Reply)
Oh, man, back and whining louder than ever.
#4.1.1 Texan99 on 2019-05-02 11:33 (Reply)
QUOTE:
{We haven't been commenting because of incessant trolling. Our scribes can identify and block most of the trolls, but the trolls keep changing their names, including misappropriating our nick, which isn't subject to easy blocking. Nor is it fair to other readers to have to wade through multiple trolls to find content.}

You haven't been commenting because damn near every commenter (even the mild-mannered, genteel ones) has repeatedly taken your ass(es) - logically and factually - to the woodshed. Consistent with that, but far worse yet, folks have ridiculed you, and there's nothing a leftist can stand less than being made fun of.

QUOTE:
... misappropriating our nick ...

It's hard to throw out chaff when you're swimming in it yourself, isn't it? Boo-%^&$ing-hoo!

QUOTE:
Nor is it fair to other readers ...

Fairness to the folks who read what you write? I think I'm going to bust a rib laughing at this! Please stop!

But perhaps I'm being both too harsh and too rash. In the spirit of your lofty, new-found spirit of re-examining assumptions, fundamentals, contradictions, etc., perhaps I should let you come clean on how your misplaced assumptions led you to foolishly, obstinately, and incorrectly claim (for 2 &^%$ing plus years!) that Trump conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 Presidential election. You have the floor.
#4.1.2 Bill Carson on 2019-05-02 13:21 (Reply)
Bill Carson: your misplaced assumptions led you to foolishly, obstinately, and incorrectly claim (for 2 &^%$ing plus years!) that Trump conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 Presidential election.

Z: Russian agents were making contacts with members of the Trump campaign, and that Russia was engaged in a conspiracy to interfere in the U.S. election, and was working to help the Trump campaign. (Please see email to Trump Jr. where he says he would "love" help from the Russian government.)

You might want to cite a specific statement with which you are taking issue, and how that relates to our fundamental assumptions.
#4.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-05-02 17:19 (Reply)
QUOTE:
Z: Russian agents were making contacts with members of the Trump campaign, and that Russia was engaged in a conspiracy to interfere in the U.S. election, and was working to help the Trump campaign. (Please see email to Trump Jr. where he says he would "love" help from the Russian government.)

Shorter Z: "Get yer buggy whips! Buggy whips, goin' cheap!"
#4.1.2.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-05-02 18:05 (Reply)
Bill Carson: Shorter Z

Each of those assertions are supported by evidence provided by the Meuller report, or indictments by the Special Counsel.
#4.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-05-02 20:53 (Reply)
QUOTE:
Each of those assertions are supported by evidence provided by the Meuller report, or indictments by the Special Counsel have been so overtaken by events as to be laughable.

Per Mueller's report, your two years plus of chirping about Trump being indicted for conspiring with Russia have all been for naught. You've figuratively died on that hill - time to find another one to figuratively expire on. And with William Barr just ramping up, that'll come.

And yet, in a thread you correctly identify as dealing with re-examining one's assumptions, you refuse to in the most glaring way, and instead continue to minutiae-level needle-dick and leg-hump in exactly the same manner that saw you chased out of here - vigorously - the last time.

And though it's only a figurative comparison, you have less self-awareness than the Lennie character in Of Mice and Men. Astounding.
#4.1.2.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-05-03 05:18 (Reply)
Bill Carson: Per Mueller's report, your two years plus of chirping about Trump being indicted for conspiring with Russia have all been for naught.

Where was that chirped? In fact, the Department of Justice policy is that a sitting president can't be indicted.
#4.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-05-03 08:30 (Reply)
Never dip a toe in to test the waters before first ensuring the pond isn't full of piranhas.
#4.1.3 Aggie on 2019-05-02 15:00 (Reply)
Enzo Ferrari just texted from beyond the grave to say, "Never did one of our V-12s ever purr quite like Zachriel's re-tooled Pedantry Module is doing here. Nor like the brand spanking new Feigned Desire to Reach Common Ground Module. Damn!"
#4.2 Bill Carson on 2019-05-02 12:34 (Reply)
QUOTE:
That is why it is important to establish the fundamental assumptions of a position

What sanctimonious $#@%ing claptrap. You only have one assumption: That no leftist has ever done anything fundamentally wrong. Your "positions" naturally (and circularly) follow from that.

And your repeated failure to address the 100 million who lost their lives due to the line of thinking (and, unfortunately, acting) that you and your (secular) co-religionists espouse is, in the context of your reliably pedantic, Corinthian leather-grade thoughtful list, not a good look.
#4.3 Bill Carson on 2019-05-02 12:58 (Reply)
Bill Carson: You only have one assumption: That no leftist has ever done anything fundamentally wrong.

That is not one of our assumptions. Fundamental wrongs by leftists include everything from the extremes of the French Revolution to the atrocities of Stalin and Mao.
#4.3.1 Zachriel on 2019-05-02 17:12 (Reply)
QUOTE:
Fundamental wrongs by leftists include everything from the extremes of the French Revolution to the atrocities of Stalin and Mao

Now do politically viable (at least with woke, going over the cliff Democrats) current-day leftists. Throw in some re-assessment of Venezuela, while you're at it. Go candid regarding Chinese espionage efforts in regard to the Clintons. Talk about Bernie Sanders' becoming a millionaire despite being less gainfully employed than a crunked up barista. Explain how the Russians (then the Soviet Union) went from being lefties' great white hope to the cause of everything from tooth decay to Hillary cannon-balling 5-buck Chuck for breakfast daily. Tackle AOC's 12-alarm innumeracy. Examine those assumptions!
#4.3.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-05-02 18:17 (Reply)
Bill Carson: Now do politically viable (at least with woke, going over the cliff Democrats) current-day leftists.

Now, you're diverting from your incorrect statement, that we only had one assumption, that "no Leftist has done anything fundamentally wrong."

This does relate to the original discussion. You, along with others on this thread, refuse to look for common ground, but make unreasoned assumptions, even when those assumptions are shown to be false.
#4.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-05-02 21:01 (Reply)
Umm no, I just tightened up my original statement:

You only have one assumption: That no politically viable current-day leftist has ever done anything fundamentally wrong.

That is, it costs you nothing politically to admit, grudgingly, that Stalin was a bad guy, but to, say, admit that lefty John Kerry laid it to the dog Loganeering in regard to Iran, you won't touch that with a 10-ft pole.

Thanks for playing. And continuing to lose. Bigly.

P.S. You've moved on from hawking buggy whips to pushing blood-letting. Excellent work.
#4.3.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-05-03 04:55 (Reply)
Bill Carson: I just tightened up my original statement:

Fair enough.

Bill Carson: You only have one assumption: That no politically viable current-day leftist has ever done anything fundamentally wrong.

President Obama and Secretary Clinton's policies in the Middle East were often inept and counterproductive. The Green New Deal is poorly thought out, and will not be effective. The tilt of some on the left to minimize the importance of markets to economic prosperity could lead to poor policy choices.

So you have made false claims — twice now — about our fundamental assumptions. This is where you now examine your own assumptions to see where you may have gone wrong.
#4.3.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-05-03 08:39 (Reply)
QUOTE:
President Obama and Secretary Clinton's policies in the Middle East were often inept and counterproductive. The Green New Deal is poorly thought out, and will not be effective. The tilt of some on the left to minimize the importance of markets to economic prosperity could lead to poor policy choices.

I stand corrected!!! Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to intensive care - hopefully I can nab a lottery ticket on my way there.
#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Bill Carson on 2019-05-03 09:06 (Reply)
I worked for a world known scientist. He used the Socratic method to try to match himself with the level of the engineer or scientist he was working with. Neither talking over nor under, aligning assumptions and correcting errors. I was on the receiving end of this often but I was not bothered by this, finding it logical and expedient. However, most people feared talking to him because they felt he was probing them with mind rays to determine their level of inferiority and stupidity. Apparently you can hit ego in just the probing to determine what the starting point is. In all the years he had used this method as a way of being understood, I was the first to recognize it and appreciate the sensibleness of it. That made him happy. How smart do you have to be to develop socratic method as a coping mechanism to be understood in your every day job?
#5 Karen on 2019-05-02 16:06 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.