Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
What if this argument is actually weak, and only appears strong because you have no counter-argument? Should you still change your mind? Does the fact that it is persuasive mean it is true?
Well, no - it doesn't always mean they're right. However, why would you hold on to your old view if someone makes an argument against it that you can't counter? At the very least it should give you some pause and make you look more deeply into the reasons why you're clinging to that view in the first place. Even if it doesn't directly disprove your point, it should still show that maybe you don't actually have the level of understanding on the subject that warrants the confidence you have in that particular view and perhaps you just want this to be the truth.
It's okay to have an opinion on something or lean toward A being more likely true than B, while still acknowledging that it's just your current view - not necessarily the absolute truth.
I mean, imagine not being able to respond to someone who defends the flat world. Even though I don't know enough about this, I trust scientists, even if I can't provide enough arguments that the earth is geoid at that moment, is this a good reason to question my view? We have a lot of beliefs in life that we don't defend very well. If we want to justify all of them, I guess we won't have time to live.
In a situation like this, you'd need to consider whether them being right on this particular point would actually shift your position.
A flat-earther might claim the moon landing never happened, show you a picture, and explain how it was actually taken in a studio. Okay - maybe you can't prove them wrong. Maybe they even made a valid observation about that picture. What happens if you grant them this one point and acknowledge that yeah, they're making a good point and maybe this particular picture is fake? Then what? Does that prove the moon landing never happened? No. Does it prove the earth is flat? No. At most it proves that one specific picture was fake. You still have a mountain of evidence supporting your belief that the earth is a sphere, not a disc, so it doesn't shift your original view. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Just because someone proves to you that jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams doesn't mean you have to grant them that 9/11 was an inside job. It's not a logical contradiction to hold these two views at the same time.