On these types of forums it’s easy to jump into an argument about the technicalities or a post or comment.

You should know, though, that there is a theory called Ways of Knowing which defines Separate Knowing and Connected Knowing. It’s been a part of my masters program I’m taking.

Separate knowing disconnects the humanity and context from what’s being said and tries to only argue the “facts”. But facts, and the things people say, don’t just occur in a vacuum. It often is the case when people are arguing past each other, like on the internet.

Connected Knowing is approaching the thing someone said with the understanding that there is a context, humanity, biases, different experiences, and human error that can all jumble up when people are sharing information.

Maybe even just knowing that there’s different ways to know would be helpful for us to engage in a different level of conversation here. I’m not sure. I just wanted to share!

https://capstone.unst.pdx.edu/sites/default/files/Critical Thinking Article_0.pdf

  • RichieAdler 🇦🇷@lemmy.myserv.oneEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    You can’t reason someone out of an unreasonable position.

    Hitting a flat earther with logic and facts will obviously be counter productive. Even a modicum of empathy and curiosity as to why someone thinks the way they do will serve you well.

    But in that case, the battle is already lost. I cannot engage with the person in a manipulative emotional way to use their emotions to shock them out of their mistaken positions. Any further communication regarding the matter is useless. And glossing over some topics is being an accomplice, but apparently that’s the only viable response.

    Knowing why they believe ss they do will do nothing to help me show them their mistake.

    Conversations are about much more than who is wrong and who is right.

    Departing with people espousing damaging views for society, given that as you say reason is not a tool that works, is pointless.