I can find someone generally reasonable, their argument coherent & their intentions good but if we differ on an issue, it'd be nonsense to say 'Your disagreement with my argument is reasonable & yet I'm not going to change or adapt my argument in consideration of your reasoning.'
-
-
Show this thread
-
In this case, my argument is that intersectionality - politics plus postmodern theory - is the wrong way to address social injustice. If someone comes along & makes a well-reasoned argument that it is the right way to address social injustice, I'll no longer make that argument.
Show this thread -
People occasionally say to me they find me reasonable but often disagree with me. I take this to mean that they think me a reasonable person generally & so follow me but that they think there are some exceptions to this. I doubt they mean 'I think you're reasonable to be wrong.'
Show this thread -
Similarly, I follow people because I admire their reasoning but then find myself in disagreement with one idea of theirs - God exists, national healthcare is a bad idea, Brexit is a good idea. I still think of them as reasonable but with some exceptions. This is almost everyone
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This may not work too well for moral disagreements though, where moral intuitions play a very big role. Basically what
@JonHaidt argues. -
Jon Haidt is how we know the intuitions that underlie our own motivated reasoning & other people's & why reasoning is hard & needs to be done collectively including viewpoint diversity. This doesn't change the incoherence of that expectation tho.
-
I accept that we fail to reason consistently alone & have argued it here, https://areomagazine.com/2017/12/08/the-problem-with-truth-and-reason-in-a-post-truth-society/ … but a demand to be able to show that one disagrees with arguments that are reasonable is incoherent. You show that I do. Obviously, I don't think I do.
-
I'm not sure what the original context of your tweet was. While I get where you're coming from, I'm not entirely convinced. An argument can be reasonable within the constraints of its own axioms. A counter-argument often comes from a different set of axioms. (1)
-
Yes, you can reason logically from wrong premises. I could certainly name the inquirer people who reason impeccably from the premise that knowledge is a product of power structures rooted in identity - Jose Medina & Kristie Dotson come to mind. If that's all you want, NP.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That's more or less my reasoning too - "I know I'm right because if I were wrong, I'd have changed my mind by now - but hey, maybe today's the day I do just that". And yet you and I are diametrically opposed on many issues!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.