Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 14:52:45 GMT -5
I think something we really need today. And not just in politics. And definitely in any debate forum. But admittedly tough to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Oct 8, 2013 15:36:11 GMT -5
Quick reply from work --
The only problem I have with this is the idea of "plural truths." There may be different ways of looking at things -- plural truths -- at times, but often there is one and only one truth.
The Japanese, and no one else, attacked Pearl Harbor. The Americans, and no one else, bombed Hiroshima.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 16:06:53 GMT -5
There may be different ways of looking at things -- plural truths -- at times, but often there is one and only one truth. And the wisdom to know the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Oct 9, 2013 9:27:38 GMT -5
So, now that I've read the article, I can say that I basically agree. It is what I usually refer to as the difference between discussion, where there is an exchange of views, and argument, where there is an attempt to force one's views on the other.
Yesterday, when I saw the term "plural truths" in the quotation from the article, it brought to mind a discussion I saw on television years ago. It was a "he said, she said" situation with an "expert" attempting to moderate. The expert kept pushing the idea of "her reality" and "his reality," almost as if they were living in different worlds. But they weren't living in different worlds. The one and only reality is what actually happened, what each of them actually said.
Referring to their differing memories as their "realities" seems to ignore the fact that at least one of them was in error about what had happened, and value their memories of the event over what really happened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 12:27:19 GMT -5
The expert kept pushing the idea of "her reality" and "his reality," almost as if they were living in different worlds. But they weren't living in different worlds. The one and only reality is what actually happened, what each of them actually said. Referring to their differing memories as their "realities" seems to ignore the fact that at least one of them was in error about what had happened, and value their memories of the event over what really happened. I don't know, Raybar. about that. What about history books? When were they ever objective? Aren't they even now trying to be revised to suit a minority opinion? Realities can differ. The point about Rogerian Argument is that each side would be aware of that and attempt to come to some kind of agreement of the minds. |
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Oct 12, 2013 11:04:10 GMT -5
History books are supposed to be based on evidence, such as historical records. They have multiple levels. One is a listing of things that happened and when they happened. There is usually only one "truth" here. Another aspect is WHY things happened, which can be debatable because different sources may claim that things happened for different reasons.
Very few historical events have a single, direct this-caused-that origin. Most history is messy because it is describing human behavior and humans are rarely rational in their decision making. Which means that there can be several ways of describing why things happened and they may all be at least partially correct.
Politics is also messy. Unfortunately, I think that most people make political decisions based on emotion rather than reality. You can't argue with emotion. And people don't feel the need to compromise or negotiate because they are certain that their emotions are completely accurate and true. And you must be evil for questioning them. 8->
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2013 12:42:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Oct 13, 2013 9:59:53 GMT -5
We're actually more or less agreeing. Yes, teachers and history books can promote false beliefs. But history is like science in that things can be questioned by presenting contrary evidence. Some of the "truths" in the link are things that the general public accepts as true, but most historians don't. And most have the "single cause" problem that I mentioned. There was no single cause of the Civil War, WW1, WW2, the Cold War, etc. So most claims are at least partly correct. The Civil War, for example, was indeed about slavery, but also maybe another 10-12 causes. So saying it was about slavery is not wrong, but it is seriously incomplete.
That's what I was going for. WW2 ended in Aug 1945, but the atomic bombs were only one of several reasons that caused the Japanese to surrender, not THE cause. 8->
|
|
