What I don't get

[Cojuanco]

Say a person espouses ideas A, B, C and D. A, B and C are erroneous and heretical propositions, but D is a perfectly reasonable proposition reconcilable with Catholic teaching. Why do so many people then seem to act in certain cases as D must necessarily be erroneous?

 

[Joe_5859]

Say a person espouses ideas A, B, C and D. A, B and C are erroneous and heretical propositions, but D is a perfectly reasonable proposition reconcilable with Catholic teaching. Why do so many people then seem to act in certain cases as D must necessarily be erroneous?

That’s why we have sayings like, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” It’s a perennial tendency in man to lump things together and accept or reject them wholesale.

I really see this tendency as something we have to constantly remind ourselves of. This is what leads to extreme polarization between groups of people. If we cannot grant that those we disagree with can ever be right on anything, we’re never going to make forward progress.

 

[Allegra]

Maybe because people heard A, B, and C first and stopped paying attention before they heard D?

 

[Joe_5859]

Maybe because people heard A, B, and C first and stopped paying attention before they heard D?

There’s that, too.

 

[hsmomforlife]

Say a person espouses ideas A, B, C and D. A, B and C are erroneous and heretical propositions, but D is a perfectly reasonable proposition reconcilable with Catholic teaching. Why do so many people then seem to act in certain cases as D must necessarily be erroneous?

Maybe because others perceive that their way of thinking/reasoning/logic skills must be flawed or at least underdeveloped and therefore disregard whatever ideas the person espouses…or in plain language…they don’t know what they are talking about.
I guess it’s like Allegra says…maybe they decided to stop listening.
Ex. If my doctor diagnoses me incorrectly three times…there’s no way that I would believe him on the fourth diagnosis (assuming that I ever went back!LOL!)

 

[Joe_5859]

Maybe because others perceive that their way of thinking/reasoning/logic skills must be flawed or at least underdeveloped and therefore disregard whatever ideas the person espouses…or in plain language…they don’t know what they are talking about.
I guess it’s like Allegra says…maybe they decided to stop listening.
Ex. If my doctor diagnoses me incorrectly three times…there’s no way that I would believe him on the fourth diagnosis (assuming that I ever went back!LOL!)

That’s true, too. When A, B, and C have worn down our trust in the person’s capacity to reason, then we become more likely to dismiss D out of hand.

Of course, that is technically a logical fallacy. We’re using our rejection of the source to reject proposition D rather than looking at the argument for proposition D. That’s a type of ad hominem.

 

[hsmomforlife]

That’s true, too. When A, B, and C have worn down our trust in the person’s capacity to reason, then we become more likely to dismiss D out of hand.

Of course, that is technically a logical fallacy. We’re using our rejection of the source to reject proposition D rather than looking at the argument for proposition D. That’s a type of ad hominem.

While an ad hominem is a logical fallacy, it still happens. Rather than rejecting the ad hominem, I think of this type of situation as relying on instincts instead of logic.

By any chance, is your name really Jim? This conversation is reminding me of when I used to live at home with my oldest brother Jim. He was a psych/philosophy major at the time.

 

[Allegra]

That’s true, too. When A, B, and C have worn down our trust in the person’s capacity to reason, then we become more likely to dismiss D out of hand.

Of course, that is technically a logical fallacy. We’re using our rejection of the source to reject proposition D rather than looking at the argument for proposition D. That’s a type of ad hominem.

While it may be a logical fallacy, certainly no one is under obligation to listen to every blessed opinion of every blessed person they come across. Who has that kind of time? Previous proven unreliability is certainly a good reason to pass up on that particular wealth of knowledge in favor of someone with a better track record.

On the other hand, if you’re already arguing with the person, it’s silly to say, “Hey, you spelled “awesome” incorrectly on your blog yesterday so you are wrong about what kind of tool I should use to fix the toilet.”

 

[Joe_5859]

While an ad hominem is a logical fallacy, it still happens. Rather than rejecting the ad hominem, I think of this type of situation as relying on instincts instead of logic.

By any chance, is your name really Jim? This conversation is reminding me of when I used to live at home with my oldest brother Jim. He was a psych/philosophy major at the time.

No, my name’s not Jim. I’m just here to remind you of your brother.

While it may be a logical fallacy, certainly no one is under obligation to listen to every blessed opinion of every blessed person they come across. Who has that kind of time? Previous proven unreliability is certainly a good reason to pass up on that particular wealth of knowledge in favor of someone with a better track record.

On the other hand, if you’re already arguing with the person, it’s silly to say, “Hey, you spelled “awesome” incorrectly on your blog yesterday so you are wrong about what kind of tool I should use to fix the toilet.”

Sure, when it comes to trusting someone’s judgment, it’s natural to look to past precedence. We always look for shortcuts that will save us a few steps. And we often find and use those shortcuts because they generally work.

The problem comes in when we argue relentlessly that the person must be wrong about D because they were wrong about A, B, and C and use that as our sole basis for saying so.

The way I interpreted the OP was that we often seem prone to kneejerk criticisms of anything said by those we disagree with. At least I can observe this tendency in myself. If someone is pro-choice, in favor of gay marriage and in favor of artificial contraception, and they start talking about some other issue, my brain is already moving me to disagree with whatever comes out of their mouth before I even have time to process the words they are saying. It takes a conscious effort to pause and consider what they are saying on its own merits.

It may be the case more often than not that I will disagree with them on whatever point D they are making anyway. I think that’s bound to happen considering the underlying differences that lead them to points A, B, and C. But it does seem to lead to ever more polarization. Maybe I’ve been hanging around the wrong threads too much lately, but it seems like a lot of people have a pretty prominent “us vs. them” mentality with regards to most things. And anything new that comes along simply gets plugged into that narrative. I understand that tendency, but I also think we need to be careful lest it rob us of any opportunity to ever find common ground.