Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Sh00ting5tar t1_j9nzsv1 wrote

Reply to comment by LuckyandBrownie in LPT: When debating or arguing with someone and it’s going nowhere, ask them, “What evidence would it take for you to consider that you’re wrong?” If they say “Nothing,” then it’s time to end the conversation. by blowfishmo

Exactly. "What argument do you accept to prove you are wrong?".

4

LuckyandBrownie t1_j9o5meo wrote

I can’t know, because if I knew I would have already changed my mind. You have to come up with an argument I don’t know to change my mind. All of the arguments that I currently know haven’t changed it.

2

hybepeast t1_j9owh69 wrote

Bigfoot is real, I believe that because he's been sighted in Washington in photos X Y and Z.

Evidence of X Y and Z being fake would change my mind.

What's so hard about this? You have to understand what their stance is, and what evidence they have to develop that stance. Then you break down their evidence.

7

Prometheus188 t1_j9p4ey6 wrote

I don’t believe in God, but if God simply showed himself and started bringing the dead back to life, that may convince me. Or if I had a 50 digit number written on a piece of paper in my pocket, and he could recite it to me, that would potentially be convincing.

Or I don’t believe in the existence of unicorns. But if I were to see a real life unicorn and upon scientific analysis, could confirm it isn’t a horse with a superglued horn in it, and that this unicorn could reproduce with other unicorns over several generations to create new unicorns, and that I could see the birth of a new unicorn with the horn, that would convince me that unicorns exist.

Your statement is completely wrong. It’s entirely possible to be aware of what would convince you, without actually being convinced if it beforehand.

6

sapphicpattern t1_j9om6uf wrote

What does the word “hypothetical” mean and why is relevant to your response?

3

bestaquaneer t1_j9sj88u wrote

You can know what would change your mind, but you don’t know if it’s true or not. I can say forever that I know for a fact that the cat in the box is alive, because I can hear it yowling. What would change my mind? Schrodinger, showing me the recording of the cat meowing and the box with the dead cat inside. That doesn’t change the fact that based on my current evidence, I know the cat is alive. I can think of the evidence that would change my mind, but as it hasn’t been presented to me, I’m going to go with my current knowledge.

1

LuckyandBrownie t1_j9svzrx wrote

Schrödinger’s cat has been perverted by popularity. It’s not that the cat is alive or dead it’s something else entirely. When someone looks at the cat it is forced into being alive or dead, but is currently something neither alive nor dead. It’s in a third state of being.

So your argument is wrong, and you had no idea why. If asked would you have said that it could be wrong because of a misnomer about superposition?

1

bestaquaneer t1_j9u1608 wrote

That’s a very long winded way of saying you don’t understand when someone is using an analogy.

1

LuckyandBrownie t1_j9u2t4p wrote

The point of an analogy is to illustrate a point, but your analogy is false so it doesn’t illustrate your point.

It’s important to understand the use of analogies.

1