Choices and Conclusions

[CIA Agent #1029]

Have you noticed this phenomenon, where different people notice the same things, but conclude opposite conclusions? And sometimes, the conclusions are opposites. This makes debating very hard. How do you convince someone of something if your own evidence makes them get the opposite conclusion?

For example:

Statement: Money is hard to get
Conclusion 1: Then I must donate to those who need it
Conclusion 2: Then I must steal and hoard it

Statement: You only live once.
Conclusion 1: Avoid danger and live as long as possible
Conclusion 2: Find dangerous things to do like traveling, skydiving, etc and do them

Statement: Science is difficult to learn and complicated
Conclusion 1: I love learning science
Conclusion 2: I hate learning science
Statement: The human body is full of miracles and flaws
Conclusion 1: This is evidence of a creator, it's miraculous
Conclusion 2: This is evidence of no creator, it's flawed

Statement: Natural disasters kill so many people
Conclusion 1: If God exists, he's so merciless
Conclusion 2: So God exists, and he's so merciful

Statement: Everything about space and stars
Conclusion 1: This is evidence the universe was created by a creator
Conclusion 2: This is evidence the universe was created without a creator

 

[Neogaia777]

Have you noticed this phenomenon, where different people notice the same things, but conclude opposite conclusions? And sometimes, the conclusions are opposites. This makes debating very hard. How do you convince someone of something if your own evidence makes them get the opposite conclusion?

For example:

Statement: Money is hard to get
Conclusion 1: Then I must donate to those who need it
Conclusion 2: Then I must steal and hoard it

Statement: You only live once.
Conclusion 1: Avoid danger and live as long as possible
Conclusion 2: Find dangerous things to do like traveling, skydiving, etc and do them

Statement: Science is difficult to learn and complicated
Conclusion 1: I love learning science
Conclusion 2: I hate learning science

Statement: Abortion (in general)
Conclusion 1: It's immoral, it's killing babies
Conclusion 2: It's not immoral, it's merciful for the baby (or for me)

Statement: The human body is full of miracles and flaws
Conclusion 1: This is evidence of a creator, it's miraculous
Conclusion 2: This is evidence of no creator, it's flawed

Statement: Natural disasters kill so many people
Conclusion 1: If God exists, he's so merciless
Conclusion 2: So God exists, and he's so merciful

Statement: Everything about space and stars
Conclusion 1: This is evidence the universe was created by a creator
Conclusion 2: This is evidence the universe was created without a creator

We live in a very diverse world, with each one of us very different, because we we're all made differently, etc.

That being said, as far as trying to convince other people about Jesus Christ, or about the existence of a God/Creator, or anything else surrounding Jesus Christ or a God/Creator/Our Bibles, etc, if you've presented the gospel message to them at least once, then our job is pretty much done there, etc. So, if they aren't curious about it after that, or don't seem to want to hear anymore about it after that, then you can pretty much stop there, etc. After you've given them the gospel message, then you shouldn't have to try and force any of the rest of it after that, not unless they start asking questions about it after that, etc.

Now on here though, it's a little bit different, because everyone is here to debate, etc, so sometimes it's a little bit different on here, etc. The nature of debates is to try and convince as many people as you can of your view/take/position, so it's usually a little bit different on here.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

We live in a very diverse world, with each one of us very different, because we we're all made differently, etc.

That being said, as far as trying to convince other people about Jesus Christ, or about the existence of a God/Creator, or anything else surrounding Jesus Christ or a God/Creator/Our Bibles, etc, if you've presented the gospel message to them at least once, then our job is pretty much done there, etc. So, if they aren't curious about it after that, or don't seem to want to hear anymore about it after that, then you can pretty much stop there, etc. After you've given them the gospel message, then you shouldn't have to try and force any of the rest of it after that, not unless they start asking questions about it after that, etc.

Now on here though, it's a little bit different, because everyone is here to debate, etc, so sometimes it's a little bit different on here, etc. The nature of debates is to try and convince as many people as you can of your view/take/position, so it's usually a little bit different on here.

God Bless.

@CIA Agent #1029

After you've given them them the gospel message at what you felt was the right time during a conversation, and they don't seem like they want to hear anything more about it after that, then the way to still have a chance to win them to Christ after that, would probably be just in your willingness to still talk about other things with them still after that probably, etc. Revisit the other subject some other time again after that again probably, etc.

Different on here though.

God Bless.

 

[Larniavc]

How do you convince someone of something if your own evidence makes them get the opposite conclusion?

Examine the epistemologies both parties bring. The person to have the most flawed epistemology is more likely to have arrived at an inappropriate conclusion.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Have you noticed this phenomenon, where different people notice the same things, but conclude opposite conclusions? And sometimes, the conclusions are opposites. This makes debating very hard. How do you convince someone of something if your own evidence makes them get the opposite conclusion?

For example:

Statement: Money is hard to get
Conclusion 1: Then I must donate to those who need it
Conclusion 2: Then I must steal and hoard it

Statement: You only live once.
Conclusion 1: Avoid danger and live as long as possible
Conclusion 2: Find dangerous things to do like traveling, skydiving, etc and do them

Statement: Science is difficult to learn and complicated
Conclusion 1: I love learning science
Conclusion 2: I hate learning science

Statement: Abortion (in general)
Conclusion 1: It's immoral, it's killing babies
Conclusion 2: It's not immoral, it's merciful for the baby (or for me)

Statement: The human body is full of miracles and flaws
Conclusion 1: This is evidence of a creator, it's miraculous
Conclusion 2: This is evidence of no creator, it's flawed

Statement: Natural disasters kill so many people
Conclusion 1: If God exists, he's so merciless
Conclusion 2: So God exists, and he's so merciful

Statement: Everything about space and stars
Conclusion 1: This is evidence the universe was created by a creator
Conclusion 2: This is evidence the universe was created without a creator

The whole purpose of a debate is to expose a view point not shared by the participants. It is not a phenomenon that personal experiences, cultural background, and family upbringing along with media consumption, social circles, and education heavily influence perspectives by shaping the information and narratives a person is exposed to. Basically both sides are comming from different perspectives.

For example , God's mercy or lack there of. This is obviously a debate between a spiritual person and an atheist. They will never come to an agreement because the foundations are already opposite. Several other of your examples are along the same line, athiest vs thiest. Naturally these two drastically different views will never see things the same .

 

[Tinker Grey]

Every example in the OP illustrates the is-ought problem.

 

[timothyu]

We are here so sow seeds. Whether they take root or not is not in our hands. Neither is how they grow. That is God’s job. We are not qualified to lead people out of the world while still adhering to it ourselves, nor can a person learn collecting knowledge from others. Memorizing is not the same as gaining wisdom. Genius is seeing beyond the obvious.

Wisdom is the result of experience which is why we are told to constantly seek the Kingdom, for our our imperfect selves will convince us we have reached an epiphany, but it will always be based on what we are comfortable with and on what the world wants us to believe . We can’t break out of a prison by making a few dents in a wall and calling that freedom. If we remain determined, there will be digging on the other side also, helping us to become free of this world that we have made in our own image. Trust in that other side, not in yourself. The more you seek the Kingdom, the closer it will come to you. Not the other way around.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Have you noticed this phenomenon, where different people notice the same things, but conclude opposite conclusions? And sometimes, the conclusions are opposites. This makes debating very hard. How do you convince someone of something if your own evidence makes them get the opposite conclusion?

For example:

Statement: Money is hard to get
Conclusion 1: Then I must donate to those who need it
Conclusion 2: Then I must steal and hoard it

Statement: You only live once.
Conclusion 1: Avoid danger and live as long as possible
Conclusion 2: Find dangerous things to do like traveling, skydiving, etc and do them

Statement: Science is difficult to learn and complicated
Conclusion 1: I love learning science
Conclusion 2: I hate learning science

Statement: Abortion (in general)
Conclusion 1: It's immoral, it's killing babies
Conclusion 2: It's not immoral, it's merciful for the baby (or for me)

Statement: The human body is full of miracles and flaws
Conclusion 1: This is evidence of a creator, it's miraculous
Conclusion 2: This is evidence of no creator, it's flawed

Statement: Natural disasters kill so many people
Conclusion 1: If God exists, he's so merciless
Conclusion 2: So God exists, and he's so merciful

Statement: Everything about space and stars
Conclusion 1: This is evidence the universe was created by a creator
Conclusion 2: This is evidence the universe was created without a creator

My perspective is that the diversity of perceptions exists because there is no Meta-Epistemology or Meta-Ethic that provides a universal, predetermined conceptual schema we all must recognize and by which we all know to evaluate the world.

This leaves us open to being conditioned to various extents by the cultures, or even the sub-cultures, in which we daily live and breath. We then each wake up each day, looking at the world and trying to make heads or tales of it and see various issues as being 'Glass half empty - or half full.'

P.S. ..... and sometimes life really does suck for some of us.

 

[zippy2006]

And all the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised the Lord, because the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid. But many of the priests and Levites and heads of fathers’ houses, old men who had seen the first house, wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, though many shouted aloud for joy; so that the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shout from the sound of the people’s weeping, for the people shouted with a great shout, and the sound was heard afar.

Ezra, chapter 3

 

[zippy2006]

Have you noticed this phenomenon, where different people notice the same things, but conclude opposite conclusions? And sometimes, the conclusions are opposites. This makes debating very hard. How do you convince someone of something if your own evidence makes them get the opposite conclusion?

By doing two things: 1) figure out what an argument is, and 2) give and receive arguments. Here is a good example of two things that are not arguments:

Statement: You only live once.
Conclusion 1: Avoid danger and live as long as possible
Conclusion 2: Find dangerous things to do like traveling, skydiving, etc and do them

First:

1. You only live once
2. Therefore, avoid danger and live as long as possible

Second:

1. You only live once
2. Therefore, find dangerous things to do like traveling, skydiving, etc. and do them

These are two non-arguments you have provided. We know this because arguments have at least two premises and a conclusion, whereas your statements have one premise and a conclusion. It should come as no surprise that non-arguments are unconvincing. In this case they are not even proper matter for a dialogue.

Here are some actual arguments:

1. You only live once
2. It is best to maximize the length of your sole life
3. Therefore, one should avoid activities that might shorten the length of one's life

And a second initial argument:

1. You only live once
2. If you only live once, then you should not spend all of your time occupied with boring, mundane activities
3. Therefore, you should not spend all of your time occupied with boring, mundane activities

Now each side has two premises and one inference to interact with.

We could even try to reach your odd second conclusion:

1. You only live once
2. If you only live once, then you should do things that are exciting
3. Therefore, you should do things that are exciting
4. Thrilling things are exciting
5. Dangerous things are thrilling
6. Therefore, find dangerous things to do like traveling, skydiving, etc. and do them

The inference to 6 is questionable, but your conclusion is also odd. Presumably one could do exciting things that also adhere to the life-maximization premise. It's not as though the only exciting things are dangerous things. (And note how this analysis was fueled by actual arguments, rather than mere two-step assertions.)

Note too that we could read any of your premise-conclusion pairs as enthymemes, but in that case the dialogue begins with a request for an explication of the reasoning, such as, "Why does the conclusion follow that I should do dangerous things from the premise that I only live once? I would think that if I lived more than once then it would be more ideal to do dangerous things."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

By doing two things: 1) figure out what an argument is, and 2) give and receive arguments. Here is a good example of two things that are not arguments:


First:

1. You only live once
2. Therefore, avoid danger and live as long as possible

Second:

1. You only live once
2. Therefore, find dangerous things to do like traveling, skydiving, etc. and do them

These are two non-arguments you have provided. We know this because arguments have at least two premises and a conclusion, whereas your statements have one premise and a conclusion. It should come as no surprise that non-arguments are unconvincing. In this case they are not even proper matter for a dialogue.

Here are some actual arguments:

1. You only live once
2. It is best to maximize the length of your sole life
3. Therefore, one should avoid activities that might shorten the length of one's life

And a second initial argument:

1. You only live once
2. If you only live once, then you should not spend all of your time occupied with boring, mundane activities
3. Therefore, you should not spend all of your time occupied with boring, mundane activities

Now each side has two premises and one inference to interact with.

We could even try to reach your odd second conclusion:

1. You only live once
2. If you only live once, then you should do things that are exciting
3. Therefore, you should do things that are exciting
4. Thrilling things are exciting
5. Dangerous things are thrilling
6. Therefore, find dangerous things to do like traveling, skydiving, etc. and do them

The inference to 6 is questionable, but your conclusion is also odd. Presumably one could do exciting things that also adhere to the life-maximization premise. It's not as though the only exciting things are dangerous things. (And note how this analysis was fueled by actual arguments, rather than mere two-step assertions.)

Note too that we could read any of your premise-conclusion pairs as enthymemes, but in that case the dialogue begins with a request for an explication of the reasoning, such as, "Why does the conclusion follow that I should do dangerous things from the premise that I only live once? I would think that if I lived more than once then it would be more ideal to do dangerous things."

Brother Zippy, unlike yourself, not everyone in the world uses the frontal lobe by which to reach conclusions.

(I mean that as a bit of wit and irony.)

 

[timothyu]

How do you convince someone of something if your own evidence makes them get the opposite conclusion?

You don’t. Such is the joy of backwards and forwards thinking. The majority of mankind run on instinct, backwards thinking. The concept of forward thinking lies in all but is rarely accessed compared to the rest, as the natural flow is to exist in what is a backwards world that we have made in our own image contrary to the original plan. So natural that people will argue over only backwards issues being limited to what the conflicted world teaches them, even though the greater field of backwards vs forward exists, but beyond their everyday grasp.

This is especially predominant in today’s world where a new generation has been taught that truth is what you make it, what you want it to be.

 

[CIA Agent #1029]

By doing two things: 1) figure out what an argument is, and 2) give and receive arguments. Here is a good example of two things that are not arguments:


First:

1. You only live once
2. Therefore, avoid danger and live as long as possible

Second:

1. You only live once
2. Therefore, find dangerous things to do like traveling, skydiving, etc. and do them

These are two non-arguments you have provided. We know this because arguments have at least two premises and a conclusion, whereas your statements have one premise and a conclusion. It should come as no surprise that non-arguments are unconvincing. In this case they are not even proper matter for a dialogue.

Here are some actual arguments:

1. You only live once
2. It is best to maximize the length of your sole life
3. Therefore, one should avoid activities that might shorten the length of one's life

And a second initial argument:

1. You only live once
2. If you only live once, then you should not spend all of your time occupied with boring, mundane activities
3. Therefore, you should not spend all of your time occupied with boring, mundane activities

Now each side has two premises and one inference to interact with.

We could even try to reach your odd second conclusion:

1. You only live once
2. If you only live once, then you should do things that are exciting
3. Therefore, you should do things that are exciting
4. Thrilling things are exciting
5. Dangerous things are thrilling
6. Therefore, find dangerous things to do like traveling, skydiving, etc. and do them

The inference to 6 is questionable, but your conclusion is also odd. Presumably one could do exciting things that also adhere to the life-maximization premise. It's not as though the only exciting things are dangerous things. (And note how this analysis was fueled by actual arguments, rather than mere two-step assertions.)

Note too that we could read any of your premise-conclusion pairs as enthymemes, but in that case the dialogue begins with a request for an explication of the reasoning, such as, "Why does the conclusion follow that I should do dangerous things from the premise that I only live once? I would think that if I lived more than once then it would be more ideal to do dangerous things."

So if I said all of that, you think people would understand it better? I don't think so. People aren't robots, they can connect the dots pretty well, but they lose track of it when you yap so much.

Also, there really are people out there that go out of their way to do dangerous things. Like skydiving, traveling, entering jungles and forests, doing car races, doing stunts, etc. I've heard that they don't feel alive except when they do those activities, or life is short so make the most of it, and similar reasons. This is the conclusion I was presenting.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So if I said all of that, you think people would understand it better? I don't think so. People aren't robots, they can connect the dots pretty well, but they lose track of it when you yap so much.

Also, there really are people out there that go out of their way to do dangerous things. Like skydiving, traveling, entering jungles and forests, doing car races, doing stunts, etc. I've heard that they don't feel alive except when they do those activities, or life is short so make the most of it, and similar reasons. This is the conclusion I was presenting.

I agree. There's generally a lot of psychological conditioning and orientation of mind that go into any one person's perceptions and choices. Some people are more intuitive and make choices according to how they feel at the moment about an option, while others are more inclined to parse things out first through longer, more prolonged thinking before deciding about the significance of a choice they may make.