Why So Negative (Rights)?


Dglgmut

Recommended Posts

A long time ago, an article on the "Ransberger Pivot" was posted and discussed over at the now almost-completely-dead Rebirth of Reason (dead, I think, for the primary reason of not using tools like the Ransberger Pivot, but opting to limit and discourage disagreement and discovery instead). The Pivot is something that Rand Paul would do well to employ.

J

Going back to this, I disagree with the theory behind this technique... A "pivot" entails a change of direction at a certain point.

What I'm trying to understand is not persuasion, but rather imparting truth. In other words, exposing contradictions, or expanding non-contradictory beliefs.

The concept of an argument actually implies some contradiction. There has to be disagreement. Yet, a successful argument necessitates complete agreement.

How can two people agree conclusively if they have disagreed at any point in the line of reasoning that lead them there?

They can't. If at any point one person has been derailed from the line of reasoning, they will not end up at the same conclusion.

Imagine the truth as a length of beliefs in a straight line (non-contradictory), and misunderstandings are when one has that length of beliefs entangled. The contradictions come when beliefs cross each other... and deception is the process of entanglement.

Imparting truth is untangling one's beliefs or extending that straight line. Therefor a mere pivot is not enough, you must make sure each belief along the way is in line... like vertebrae.

And really, argument is probably not the best method to impart truth. An argument is like saying, "I'm going to straighten your beliefs out," and of course, people tense up. Like someone saying, "I'm going to straighten out your spine," there are conditions that make people more open to these things.

This is why empathy is so important for successful communication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Rearranging or prioritizing beliefs may be a better way to put it.

You are not contradicting any of their beliefs, but rather affirming the more important ones. It is then up to them to consistently apply their own reasoning and come to better conclusions.

But to attack one of their conclusions off-the-bat will make your affirmations weaker. Therefore conclusions should never be addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now