arguing with anyone other than an epistemic peer is not thinking
-
-
@sarahdoingthing different backgrounds. But would we want to say that's not thinking? Not every exchange between dissimilars is primarily a -
@LogicalAnalysis personally I have epistemic peers from very different backgrounds - not that background is irrelevant - 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@sarahdoingthing much cognitive similarity do you need? Is knowing logic or the relevant mathematics, if any, enough? If not, what else? -
@LogicalAnalysis I suspect it's richer than that - helps if you look in each other's eyes, care about each other, dumb stuff like that - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@sarahdoingthing power exchange, it seems to me. And if not "thinking"? Isn't it too much like thinking to make the issue unimportant? -
@LogicalAnalysis when an exchange is more "fighting" and "trying to win" than "trying to get to the truth" it's not thinking (I think) ;) - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@LogicalAnalysis arguing with enemies can have purposes but it's not the same as thinking -
@sarahdoingthing Went as badly as you might expect. Not on my part at first. But he blatantly insisted on misinterpreting my views. - 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@sarahdoingthing Leaves it very vague with borderline cases of people that neither are nor aren't. Also, trust might be misplaced. And howThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@sarahdoingthing Also... what about the history of philosophy, or even science. Peers can sometimes approach an issue from substantiallyThanks. 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.