the best test of truth............

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment

-Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, from this dissent

to heal........................

 In order to heal the stark divisions in our country, we need to approach one another with compassion and understanding. It’s baffling to see how many members of both parties have never taken the time to understand the other point of view and learned to say, “I disagree, but I understand.” This is vital for the future of constructive discourse in our nation.

Christine Schueckler, from here

The lost art..........................

 

......................................of disagreement.

Polarization is underrated.........................

 

Slugging things out is underrated.

-Tyler Cowen

How good friends discuss politics................

This one has really aged well. James Spader and William Shatner calmly discuss presidential politics, all without reloading:

 

Uh-oh.............................

 The hallmark of a resilient, productive and sustainable culture is that disagreements aren’t risky.

-Seth Godin, from here

Wisdom...............................

 The reason I like blogging over other social media formats is that bloggers seem to understand that they will disagree with some things written by a blogger and agree with other things written by the same person.  They don’t get too ruffled about it.  Life is too short and they have their own blog.  When I read what others write, I take the information in and don’t feel any strong obligation to express either agreement or disagreement on every topic.  I take it in and move on.  I also appreciate the differing points of view.

-Kurt Harden, from this post, which reminded me of this:

This is me................................

..............................................................waving the white flag of surrender.  Michael Stanley's Stagepass makes my all-time great list.  While Making Movies is not my favorite Dire Straits album (Brothers in Arms is), it is pretty darn good.  Ditto U2's Boy.  1980 will no longer be found in the "so-so music" file.  There may be two lessons here:  first, don't argue music with Kurt Harden unless you're prepared to lose; second, if do you want to argue with Kurt, make sure bourbon and cigars are at hand - it makes the losing easier.

Is it okay to disagree with Kurt Harden?

....................In my wee corner of the blogosphere this might be considered risky, but I'm going out on the limb and say that 1980 was just a so-so year in the history of music.  Now 1969, that was something special!

On the importance of dissent...........

     Hayek, on the other hand, argued in The Road to Serfdom that dissent from the consensus was necessary for the "life of thought."   So long as dissent is not suppressed, there will always be some who will query the ideas ruling their contemporaries and put new ideas to the test of argument and propaganda.   This interaction of individuals, possessing different knowledge and different views, is what constitutes the life of thought.  Hayek argued that the absence of  "different views" — that is, Myrdal's unanimity — in fact inhibits the progress of thought.  "The growth of reason is a social process based on the existence of such differences." 
     Hayek condemned those who wanted to suppress debate, what he called "the presumption of any group of people" — such as Myrdal's unanimous development experts — "to claim the right to determine what people out to think or believe."  The absence of dissent would "produce a stagnation of thought and a decline of reason."

-William Easterly,  The Tyranny Of Experts:  Economists, Dictators, And The Forgotten Rights Of The Poor

Thrilling learning..........................

I have found triangulating with highly believable people who are willing to have thoughtful disagreements has never failed to enhance my learning and sharpen the quality of my decision making.  It typically leads me to make better decisions than I could have otherwise and it typically provides me with thrilling learning.  I urge you to do it.
     To do it well, be sure to avoid the common perils of:  1) valuing your own believability more than is logical and 2) not distinguishing between who is more or less credible.

-Ray Dalio,  Principles

On civility and open-mindedness......

Tim Harford offers a check-list for the art of disagreement:

1.   Take five minutes before responding. Walk around the block.
2.   Don’t argue to win, argue to learn.
3.   Avoid people who fan flames.
4.   Don’t feel you have to weigh in on every topic.
5.   If your peers demand you weigh in, ponder your choice of peers.
6.   Seek out thoughtful people who disagree with you. Listen.
7.   Examine your own emotional responses.
8.   Summarise your opponents’ arguments fairly and thoughtfully.

Eye of the beholder...............

With fake new lurking everywhere, these have been some trying times for journalists who actually care about having a reputation for objectivity - "Just the facts, maam."

Academia, fortunately, has rushed in to help sort it all out.  Messing around in the Intertunnel can end you up in some strange places.  For instance, this paper "Social Media And Fake News In The 2016 Election."

To save you from having to read the whole paper, here is their conclusion:

In summary, our data suggest that social media were not the most important source of election news, and even the most widely circulated fake news stories were seen by only a small fraction of Americans. 

I stopped paying attention when the authors reported that their sources for determining fake news were Snopes, PolitiFact, and BuzzFeed.  Really?

If you Google "is Snopes.com biased?" you will be led here.  What a hoot.  You can look up the others your ownself.

My suggestion is that you talk with and listen  - talk and listen, not argue - to many different people with different perspectives and persuasions.  Its okay to watch both CNN and Fox News, just don't believe either one of them without doing your own thinking.   This suggestion applies to both news purveyors and news consumers.   Just saying.

Can I get an Amen....................?

“This mean humorless philosophy which says everybody should agree on absolutely everything is not good.” He continued, “When the word moderation becomes a dirty word we have some soul searching to do.” 

-George H. W. Bush, as culled from here

Can't we all just get along.......................?

Megan McArdle asks for a fair-minded discussion about a fairly important topic.   Good luck with that:

The arguments about global warming too often sound more like theology than science. Oh, the word “science” gets thrown around a great deal, but it's cited as a sacred authority, not a fallible process that staggers only awkwardly and unevenly toward the truth, with frequent lurches in the wrong direction. I cannot count the number of times someone has told me that they believe in “the science,” as if that were the name of some omniscient god who had delivered us final answers written in stone. For those people, there can be only two categories in the debate: believers and unbelievers. Apostles and heretics.

As they say in our neighborhood, read the whole thing (including the Coyote Blog posts she references).

What does one do..........................

.....................................with a startled masked procyonid?

acceptance....................

via

Did you nod your head yes when reading this?

First, do we share similar values of producing greatness through thoughtful disagreement?

If intrigued, read this Ray Dalio interview.

Contrary.............................

I am something of a contrarian, I suppose. I feel less comfortable when everybody agrees with me. I say, “I better reexamine my position!” I probably believe that the worst opinions in my court have been unanimous. Because there’s nobody on the other side pointing out all the flaws.

-Antonin Scalia, as extracted from this excellent interview

thanks craig

Let's debate..................................

Slate.com generously offers us an alternative to political arguments at family gatherings.  Rather than fight about the glories of  Obamacare or the fecklessness of our 43rd President,  families can now politely debate questions like these:

• If you were condemned to be a tree or a fish which would be better?
• If all music were replaced by the works of one of the following artists, which would be better: Billy Joel or Beethoven?
• Humans have destroyed the planet, and we are all now under the thumb of animal overlords. Would it be better to be ruled by dolphins or bumblebees?
• Would you rather live by an ocean or in the mountains?
• If you were granted the godlike power to do one but not both of these, would you choose to end global warming or cure cancer?
• If Lex Luthor finally defeated Superman and condemned all productive Americans to communicate either by email or conference call, which would be better?
• Would you rather meet your ancestors or your great-great-grandchildren?
• Would you rather fight a horse-sized duck or 100 duck-sized horses?
• Who would win a battle between a nearsighted Mr. Rogers armed with a baguette, and Mr. Peanut riding a unicycle who had the ability to see 3 seconds into the future? (This question courtesy of Superfight!)
• Would you rather play the world's instruments expertly or speak the world's languages fluently?
• If you had to give up coffee or alcohol for the rest of your life, which would it be? (And I don't just mean for breakfast.)
• Which is more valuable: $100 donated to charity or three hours spent in a soup kitchen?

My favorite would be the godlike powers scenario. Lots of room for continuing arguments there.  If we were to end global warming, does that mean that global cooling (not a favorable outcome) ensues, or does it mean that for the first time in four point five billion years conditions on Earth would not be in flux?  Just asking.