From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Oct 01 2002 - 02:53:49 MDT
Peter writes
> [Lee wrote]
> >Again, I don't see anyone here who has contempt for
> >the truth. But yes, I admit that their minds work
> >in such a way that they want to win. I want to win.
> >I suspect that XXXXX are wrong, and that my side is
> >right, but I immediately qualify that by saying it's
> >because we have differing *values*. That's the
> >hypothesis anyway.
>
> I'm puzzled as to what you think value differences
> between truth seekers explain.
I think that a number of ideological differences can
be shown to rest on irresolvable differences in
values. For example, person A may find education to
be *so* important that he violates his usual libertarian
principles to support public education, but in every
other way agrees with person B. They may both be
devout truth-seekers, but can not progress on resolving
their dispute.
> Can you hypothesize any value differences, other than differences in
> how highly people value truth, that would explain what looks to me like
> an ideological debate between you and Robin in the thread found around
> http://www.extropy.org/exi-lists/extropians.3Q01/4302.html?
> Or do you claim that that dispute was fundamentally different from the
> kind of disagreement we see in left-right debates?
That kind of debate *is* totally different from left-right
debates, which, I believe, ultimately rest on values. For
example, what is the value cost of holding one gender up
to potential ridicule? For some, the cost may be so low
that they don't even bother to frame sentences in a
sensitive way to avoid insulting one gender. For others,
the cost could conceivably be so high that even *investigating*
a field of inquiry that *might* prove embarrassing in terms
of respect or stature to one gender must be forbidden.
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean when you call me a truth seeker.
> My desire for the truth and my desire to prove that my prior beliefs were
> wise sometimes conflict.
To me, that's evidence that you are a "truth seeker", which
is an unwieldy concept that emerged in a discussion that I
was having with Jeff in this thread. Jeff characterized
those who are *not* truth-seekers this way:
"Regard for truth is demoted to 'how can it help me win',
which is contempt for truth."
and this way:
"The main difficulty is the subversive participation of
individuals who refuse to follow the rules, and the
corruption of discourse--and trust--that results from
the failure to censure or exclude them."
For example, I do hear some talk show hosts who simply
go silent when someone from *their* side makes an
outrageous statement. Whereas one extremely prominent
talk show host that I listen to a great deal goes out
of his way to criticize one of his followers who has
gone too far.
> I wouldn't be surprised if were possible to
> demonstrate, for example, that having bought stock in a company causes
> me to hold a higher opinion of that company than I would otherwise hold.
> That would seem to demonstrate that I sometimes subordinate my desire for
> the truth to another of my goals. If so, would you stop calling me a
> truth seeker? Or would the fact that I place a positive value on the
> truth be enough for you to label me a truth seeker?
The latter, I think. I think that it's impossible to
*entirely* keep our own hidden motives from affecting
our conscious thoughts and calculations. But your
question does help o show up the limitations of the
concept "truth seeker".
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:22 MST