I wasn't declaring victory. I think that whole way of thinking about discussions is toxic and stupid. When it turns out that one party hasn't been arguing in good faith and that there isn't much likelihood of anything useful coming from further discussion, no one wins. But that's where we seem to be.
It's that discussion-as-competitive-game framing again! Again, I think that's a bad way to look at it. Anyway: (1) it is always possible that what I said was wrong, (2) I am not currently aware that it was, (3) which may or may not indicate that I am not "smart enough", and (4) as already indicated, I do not wish to continue this discussion any further.
More universal truth than admission. It's always possible that something, anything, I've said is wrong. If you spend most of your time in discussions with people who don't recognize that then either (1) you're choosing the wrong people to talk to, or (2) there's something about the way you're talking to them that discourages them from acknowledging that pretty straightforward fact.
(Framing your discussion as a competitive game in which it makes sense to "declare victory" etc., as you have done here, might do it. People are generally less willing to do things that feel like getting beaten.)
Dunno what intuition you're referring to, so I can't comment on whether it's correct.
I get the sense that you are implying that your approach here is necessarily more optimal than mine in an absolute sense (as opposed to superior in a normative, "Overton Window" sense...I can easily acknowledge you are the victor there) - regardless: do you believe that it is? Because optimality in an absolute sense is my core concern.
I have a serious issue with this norm of strongly implied "facts", and then (usually after a multi-comment challenge) a casual "I could be wrong" or "It's just my opinion" as a sort of rhetorical get out of jail free card. I consider this behavior dangerous and irresponsible, especially as an aspect of the default metaphysical framework (aka: story) of a culture: science/scientism, that claims superiority to all others (but refuses to defend that claim, contrary to its scriptures).
Though, I do not think you do it with (substantial) conscious intent or maliciousness, fwiw - tautologically, everyone is doing their current best. But being a non-determinist, (some) free will believer, I think people can improve - and, I believe people can be made to improve, even against their will. Breaking the will of one Human is hard, breaking the will of millions/billions of huma s at massive scale, that's a whole other story. I believe it can be done though!
Yes, I believe it is usually better not to treat conversations as competitive games. (Not always. For instance, formal debates have some value, even if only for entertainment.) I'm not sure what "in an absolute sense" really means, though, so I'm not sure whether I've answered your question; I think it's better in the sense that it's more likely for the conversations in question to improve the world overall. (E.g., by making one or both participants' beliefs or thinking more accurate.)
When I say "I could be wrong" it isn't a rhetorical get-out-of-jail-free card, it's a simple statement of fact. You claimed I was "speaking untruthfully" and (by implication) asked whether I was aware of it; I said: so far as I know, what I said was true, but it could be wrong. I'm not sure what nefarious rhetorical goal you imagine I was achieving by saying that, but my intention was simply to summarize my actual epistemic state since you were evidently curious (or, I guess, pretending to be curious) about it.
Anyway. When I said I didn't want to continue this conversation, I meant it. I don't think you're arguing in good faith; you continue to be (apparently deliberately) super-vague about your actual position; you make repeated assertions of bad faith on my part; you've made it clear that you see this as a zero-sum interaction where your goal is to "win"; in view of all that, I think there is negligible chance of anything actually useful coming of the discussion. I shall not be responding further.
This is powerful, and popular. I wonder what it means. I wonder how many people on this planet wonder this, or similar things.
I wonder why things on this planet are so screwed up, in fact (as opposed to how it seems, which is the maximum of what can be discussed if operating under good faith guidelines[1]). I wonder if there is anyone else on this planet wonders this.
I wonder if the above "is" "in good faith".
[1] Could pleasure on behalf of the accuser be a principal component of good faith?
I propose this is a bit of a checkmate - thoughts/memes/rhetoric?
[1] I very much enjoy pointing out the flaws (logical inconsistency) in "scientific thinking" as it is...which is another instance of the very same abstract phenomenon Neil is talking about here, "as it is-ness", as opposed to how it is intended and asserted as a fact to be (which is literally what you are doing in this argument)... I wonder if he ever considered that he too (and all of his "intellectually superior" to my kind) scientific colleagues) suffers from this very same problem, and also the degree to which he has considered it.
