Most arguments aren't like a mathematical proof, where you can follow it and be certain that it is correct on one reading. For most arguments, the more time goes by, the more I trust my opinion that the argument holds water. So I change my mind gradually.
I’m curious. Why are you talking about a situation that does not pertain to the premise of the post I made? I’ve stated, I think explicitly, the type of situation I’m talking about and it is not the type of situation you are talking about. I’ve made no claims about what one should do in the cases that you are talking about.
I suppose you think there are no circumstances under which a person ought to change their mind “on the spot” so to speak. If you can think of such a circumstance then what is the point you are tying to get across?
> I agree with the sentiment but it seems to me that if someone presents a new, compelling argument against a belief you hold then shouldn’t you change your mind immediately?
That's from the post you made. That's pretty general, not talking about just a "type of situation".
> I suppose you think there are no circumstances under which a person ought to change their mind “on the spot” so to speak.
I deny you the right to put words in my mouth. I did not say that, nor did I mean that.
Off topic: "I suppose you think" (and "Then you must think" and similar phrases) very often signal a distortion at best, and often a complete strawman. They have become red flags to me. Perhaps you did not mean it that way. But observing a fair number of HN comments, that's generally the way that phrase is used. To me, it has become a spectral signature of a certain kind of bad rebuttal.
The type of situation was new, compelling argument. In my first response to you I stated: More succinctly, there are times when one should change their mind much more rapidly than gradually.
You responded by repeating your original points. This gives the impression that you don’t think this is true. That is, that you don’t believe there are circumstances where someone ought to change their mind much more rapidly than gradually. I still don’t understand the purpose of your posts. They did not pertain the situation I was talking about.
Side discussion. Putting words into my mouth is not a good response. The statements we make have logical conclusions and implications. So while one may not say the words, for instance, I want to kill you. one can conclude this sentiment if other words/actions imply it.
You may attempt to deny me the right to put words into your mouth, so to speak, but as a person well trained in mathematics you won’t be successful. A collection of statements is rarely without valid, logical implications. I may not correctly make deductions on meaning/intent but the retort ought to be: That’s not a valid deduction for these reasons…
