Yes and no. It depends what you mean by "respect the idea". If you mean "think it is correct," then that's a tautology, and wrong ideas can't be respected, by definition. But if you mean "think it's one that deserves to be taken seriously, addressed intelligently, and ...
-
-
Replying to @AkivaMCohen @HPluckrose
considered on its merits," then wrong ideas absolutely can be (and some should be) respected. It's in contrast to, say, flat-earth theory, which is an idea that doesn't deserve to be taken seriously because it is so self-evidently flawed
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AkivaMCohen
I see it very differently. At the most an idea can be considered important to address seriously but I would not call this respect.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Then I think you're having a semantic difference of opinion rather than a substantive one, since I doubt the person asking you "what wrong ideas do you respect" defines "respect" as applied to ideas the same way.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AkivaMCohen
I think this is a problem of thinking tho. I get a bee in my bonnet about 'respect'. I think it is essential to only give respect to ideas which have validity. I am worried about the idea of respecting ideas regardless of their truth value.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
But your problem seems to be with the implications some people may have for the word "respect" more than its actual content if understood in the way I (and others) use it. You agree that there are wrong ideas that are worth taking seriously (& not because of their harmfulness)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AkivaMCohen
Yes, but we need to think about what we consider respect-worthy, whether it is the idea itself or the thinking that has gone into it. When a scientific consensus is overturned by new evidence, we don't stop respecting the previous work but we do stop respecting the idea.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Yes ... but that's because the idea has been conclusively disproven. (Hence the lack of respect for flat-earthism). I don't think you can get to that type of conclusiveness in many cases of wrong ideas in philosophy/social sciences
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AkivaMCohen
This is true. But I still don't respect ideas unless there is some evidence of their soundness. And God is not really a philosophical or social science issue. He either exists or not. That is a scientific question.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
We really do need to have that debate we talked about a while back
Once my custody trial is done, we're going to have it out in Aero, you hear?
But no, it's not a scientific question at all, since science is the study of the existent universe and ...2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Well, if God didn't create it and isn't having any impact on it, we won't be able to discover him unless we can develop science to enable us to get to wherever he is.
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.