Is "What would change your mind?" a valid question in discussions?

[St_Francis]

I do not see it that negatively.

Yes, I’m beginning to see that

Idealy, ever single of our opinions and so on can be traced back to certain beliefs/assumptions. Logically, if such a belief/assumption turns out to be wrong, a change in the dependent opinion should or is at least likely to occur.

Therefore, such a question might be a legitimate attempt to identify the actual relevant issue.

For example for me one crucial point is that killing innocent and defenseless humans is usually/always immoral; therefore, for example, i can dismiss a lot of philosophical/religious opinions, which are simply wrong on this issue.

If i would ever change my opinion, e.g. for example that i would no longer consider killing innocent and defenseless humans usually or always immoral, a lot of my positions would change.

Anyone wanting me to stop praying, quit church, hail abortion, same-sex marriage and communism just needs to convince me that its ok to kill inoocent and defenseless humans.

So… if an advocate of one if those positions asked you what would cause you to change your mind, what would you say? Because on some topcs I would only be able to say that I do not believe anythings exists which could cause me to change my mind!.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I do not see it that negatively.

Idealy, ever single of our opinions and so on can be traced back to certain beliefs/assumptions. Logically, if such a belief/assumption turns out to be wrong, a change in the dependent opinion should or is at least likely to occur.

Therefore, such a question might be a legitimate attempt to identify the actual relevant issue.

…

A good way of looking at this sort of situation is to couch the question as, “What if anything would cause you to deepen your perspective?”

This could be so whether it is us “trying to convince” a sceptic or someone else trying to argue us out of our convictions.

In the real real world, issues often aren’t as head-to-head as they are made out to be. A question of conduct can be resolved by admitting issues that have been airbrushed out of the picture. Scepticism about a doctrine can be lived with by affirming areas where the sceptic does have beliefs.

It’s great to respect fellow human beings’ capability to think ever further and deeper. Or challenge them to begin - many sadly have been put down and taught not to use theirs.

My late dad used to say, “Always have an enquiring mind.”

 

[fisherman_carl]

You can’t love someone before you know them and you can’t know them without some kind of investigation. You have to keep asking questions, is this person who I think he/she is, do they hold the same values as me, do they have any bad habits or morals? The same is true with God. We can’t love God if we don’t know him. Some of us grew up knowing about God but not really knowing Him. Some of us grew up without knowing anything about God at all. Have you’ve ever seen The Journey Home on EWTN, featuring guests who either converted or reverted to the Catholic faith? Many of the guests, especially former atheists of agnostics, had to do some investigative work to come to better knowledge of God. It was only after coming to know God could they love him.

And no where did i say that you have to love someone blindly. What i said was to address the issue of skepticism and say it is not the same in science as it is in love or belief in God (or even philosophy). Skepticism has its limits as far as being useful. People who are skeptical about everything end up believing in nothing.

 

[QuidVeritasEst]

You know how some people say that if you hold a position that you need to be able to state what would cause you to change your mind?

First, it seems like a trick on the part of the opponent to find out in what direction they should argue! Kind of asking someone to do their work for them.

And it’s a red herring. Then instead of discussing the question, they discuss the opposite of the question.

Finally, it seems like if a person holds a position, it’s because they believe their position to be *true. *How can someone come up with what wouod change their mind?

It is often very difficult to logically persuade a person to change their mind on a subject, especially if they are wrong, but have based quite a lot of their world view on that incorrect assumption. You find this with, for instance, fundamentalist Christians who are taught empirical science. They often habitually and permanently reject it, even if evidence is pact, because their incorrect view of religion causes a conflict.

In situations like this, it is often good to ask a person to try and spell out the reasons for their own opposition. Oftentimes, it might help them to realize the weakness of their arguments, or the poor basis for the beliefs.

 

[carn]

So… if an advocate of one if those positions asked you what would cause you to change your mind, what would you say? Because on some topcs I would only be able to say that I do not believe anythings exists which could cause me to change my mind!.

Yes, for some aspects this is true. But just because i think there is nothing to change my mind, doesn’t mean there isn’t.

And its better the other knows were i think the critical point is, as it can save a lot of futile arguments (e.g. if someone discusses abortion with me, we can skip all those discussion of how hard it is for some women; it won’t change my mind, since if door A is “kill innocent and defenseless human” and the only other door reads anything but “kill innocent and defenseless human” or “torture innocent and defenseless human” then i opt for trying door B and hope for the best).

Also, there are for some issues other aspects, which might chance my point of view.

E.g. for communism it would also be sufficient to change my mind if:

• a clear and legally handable distinction between means of production and other property could be named
• it could be argued rather convincingly that based on this distinction there is at least a chance to build a functioning communistic economy
• a somewhat homogenic country is separated, preferably with the consent of the inhabitants, in two areas which geographically and politically could at least form own states, with one area applying the above communism and the other applying a known and somewhat working version of “capitalism”

If then after 50 years still no droves of people migrate from communistic area to capitalistic area, i would rethink my opposition to communism. But only if no cheating by building a wall happened.

That this scenario is unlikely to be realised does not change, that it probably might convince me; but still this serves the discussion, because the pro-communistic discussion partner would have an easier time understanding why he has a hard time to convince me, cause the two similar “experiments” had a devastating result for communism.

For same-sex marriage, the solution might be to demonstrate that

• the magisterium of the Church is fallible (done by showing a contradiction)
• the very, very strong correlation between being in favor of same-sex marriage and abortion is no indirect causation or dependent upon an unnnamed third factor (if vast majority checking “yes” on same-sex marriage referendum checks “yes” on abortion referndum, as current political affiliations indicate, i cannot check “yes” on same-sex marriage out of fear it is somehow indirectly connected to killing innocent and defenseless humans)

Regarding praying, its easy, just show me that the one i am praying to, does not agree to killing innocent and defenseless being usually or always wrong; then i immidiately stop praying (note that i am blasphemous enough that the one i am pryaing to, is also bound to some extent by this, though it might be in a way i do not understand and cant comprehend).

Regarding quiting Church, just show me that the Church does not agree to killing innocent and defenseless being usually or always wrong.

With abortion there is no workaround, the other side would have to convince me, that killing innocent and defenseless humans is not usually wrong; that might be impossible, but maybe it is better if innocent and defenseless humans trying to fully and throughfully convince me that killing innocent and defenseless humans is to some extent ok are guaranteed to fail.