[eebynight]

Every time this topic comes up someone posts this Popper argument.

The problem, in my opinion, with this argument is that it is spoken from a position of moral superiority. When deciding whether to surpress an idea by force, who is making that decision? Why is that person or group correct about the matter?

My major issue is that the people using this argument are usually so adamant about an idea they can’t see any flaws in their reasoning and believe they are correct without a doubt.

Can no one think of a time in the past when the “right” move to surpress or perpetuate an idea ended up being something that was regretted in the future?

Can you be sure that the decision you are making now will be looked back on favorably?

On one side of this argument, I can imagine this being a solid strategy to prevent another Nazi Germany style idea from taking over.

However, on the other hand, I see this being used to conveniently sweep ideas under the rug that are not favorable, but may not be as dangerous as they are made out to be (think Fahrenheit 451 or 1984).

So to summarize, I don’t think people should just drop this argument and call it a day. I’d love to see more discussion rather than ad hominem attacks.

/rant

[scarejunba]

It isn't mechanically executable but it does present a strong heuristic: resist all attempts to dismantle the discussion. You want the structure to remain even if you lose an individual argument.

[rjblackman]

the decision will be made through rational argument. if you are not willing to debate or argue then your position is forfeit (I.E. you are the one with the intolerant philosophy).

[cortesoft]

I get frustrated at this line of reasoning; how long do you have to debate it? If the person you are debating keeps bringing up illogical arguments, or says non-sequiturs, or keeps making the same arguments over and over, do you have to keep arguing or 'your position is forfeit'?

Do you have to debate EVERYONE who disagrees with you? Do you have to have the exact same argument with different people, because the second person didn't hear your argument with the first?

I have a friend who trolls me by taking advantage of my need to be rational. He will argue with me, but continue to make more and more non-sensical arguments as we go along. By the end, he will say something like "hah! So you admit hamsters are nocturnal, therefore the sun can't rise in the east!"

At that point I realize he has just been trying to get me angry with irrational argument, so I know I just have to stop arguing.

Just because I refuse to debate him doesn't mean I give up my ability to have a position.

[rjblackman]

popper believed that we can convince people through reason. not sure how he would deal with trolls.

[gruez]

>the decision will be made through rational argument

and what do you do when both sides are at an impasse because they have different axioms?

[rjblackman]

then the axioms themselves can be argued until a conclusion is reached, otherwise debate can be suspended. the underlying axiom here is that debate can be had, and that people can be convinced through reason.

[Reelin]

> the underlying axiom here is that debate can be had, and that people can be convinced through reason

I take it you haven't seen Twitter (or Facebook, or Reddit, or even SE lately)? Or perhaps you're referring only to in person interactions here, but I've still never witnessed this outside of a STEM setting (and even then, not always).

[lmm]

A platform that deliberately limits the length of what can be posted to only the most trivial thoughts turns out to be a poor place for debate? Shocking, that.

[rjblackman]

we are talking about karl popper's open society. not sure he knew about social media :)