Really good point on controversial issues. I think opposing sides of current hot topic issues (take your pick, gun control, abortion, pronouns) start with a different set of axioms. Axiomatic differences can lead of vastly different conclusions, both with sound logical reasoning.
Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusion.
> Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusion.
Do note that often in this kind of controversial topics, the axioms are not held consistently by a given side (or the actual axioms are hidden and differ from the stated ones). For example, "it's always wrong to end a life [except when bombing abortion clinics | except when it's a death row immate]". Then the ad hoc provisions start, "oh, I meant an innocent life" ("but how can a nonsentient being be called innocent in any meaningful way?"), etc, etc. The debate then becomes anything but grounded on well defined axioms.
It's not even that they aren't held consistently. Honestly, nobody (outside of philosophy papers) lists out their axioms and derives beliefs. They have beliefs and "reverse engineer" the supporting axioms, and don't particularly care if the axioms required for one position conflict with the ones required for another.
Very true. In fact, I don't think people even start out with "beliefs". They start out with feelings. The emotional response is the equivalent to an axiom, and is abstract and formless. They must use their life experiences to form a reasoning to justify why they feel a certain way, and that is their "belief". This justification is rarely entirely accurate, it's just an approximation filtered through their own biases and reasoning capabilities.
When I have an argument, I find it most productive to first seek out to understand how the other person feels. Peoples' feelings are rarely "incorrect", and usually align with my own feelings at some fundamental level, although perhaps with different intensities. I then try to work with them to put our brains and experiences together to find a more solid understanding for why we feel that way.
What is a belief but an axiom? A prior that must be assumed, as it cannot be proven within the system.
I will definitely concede that the logic people use on a day-to-day basis is much fuzzier than an analytic might prefer, and that there's much greater allowance for contradiction (see the phenomenon of Cognitive Dissonance). But I do think that most people argue from their own first principles, consciously or not. There are rare cases where you can convince someone of something when you discover and correct a logical flaw they have made. More often than not, though, a 'logical argument' is a veiled battle of dogma; both participants are moderately rational, and share the same rules of logic, but their axioms are so alien to eachother that what is plain as day to one is a violation of human decency to another. I'd reckon that in reality, it's rare that two people are actually even arguing about the same thing, even though they may be using some of the same words.
Agreed, I don't think people really debate emotionally charged issues from first principles. I think it's an error to think of this as a matter of logical axioms. That's not how people (usually) debate.
It's been out of favor since Derrida, but I think Structuralism is due for another pass in the limelight. An extreme subjectivism about reality, shaped by the stimuli you are exposed to. These external stimuli are what define your axioms, and from there, you use the same (fuzzy, bad, and prone to inducing contradctions) logic as everyone else. It provides a compelling model for why people have difficulty reconciling their opinions; they're not even talking about the same things, just using the same words, the same signs.
> "but how can a nonsentient being be called innocent in any meaningful way?"
This makes me imagine putting people through a trolley problem where you have a serial killer on one side and an 8 week old fetus [1] on the other. That said, many of the people I've known simply argue against the death penalty instead. This may be biased by knowing Catholics, though.
Well, the real mistake is believing that people think or behave in a consistent manner. All attempts at "rational" debate starts from this flawed premise, and thus always fails.
"All" and "always" are too strong. It's definitely possible to engage in rational debate with an intent to be consistent, and update one's own views when a conflict is discovered. It's just not universally done.
> Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusion.
yes, and you'd also end up with an outright ban on civilian ownership of automatic weapons, amongst other safety measures. But you don't often see those two together. I think that the axioms are a layer or two below that, and might involve concepts like "individual responsibility" and "greater good"
Agreed; it seems likely that the axiom system of the typical pro-life defender[0] is closer to "It's always wrong to end an innocent life"; this requires the inclusion of a set of axioms defining innocence (and thus probably invoking some combination of free will, and an absolute moral axis. A convenient framework for this includes a soul). This way you preserve the ability to defend yourself, to take the life of an enemy soldier, etc, while still being able to justify a pro-life position. It also allows for the death sentence for murderers.
---
0. there are, of course, different sets of axioms that arrive at superficially similar conclusions. For example, the category of pacifist that believes that any loss of life is not justifiable; this kind of person will reject both abortion and ownership of weapons, war, etc.
It could also be that either side of these debates are unknowingly using abductive reasoning for how they feel about a stance that conflicts. Perhaps the proposed axioms come after to explain how people feel about controversial issues.
Funny enough, this conversation could also be a form of abductive reasoning. We're inferring that people are using abductive reasoning because people often hold conflicting moral views, though using abductive reasoning wouldn't necessarily guarantee conflicting views.
It's always surprised me that Google took so much longer than Amazon to offer a cloud computing solution. I think one of the reasons is that Amazon's strategy is to sell the infrastructure it builds to offer its own products- whether that's AWS for its technical infrastructure, or its ecommerce platform.
While Google is certainly a strong contender, I wouldn't underestimate that importance of a strong high-level strategy. And Amazon knows this. Commodification of cloud resources is a risk to AWS and thus we see an increase of 'serverless' infrastructure from AWS that tries to differentiate from competitors.
Definitely an interesting idea, retaliating in the same spirit. But would it help Netflix? Switching costs for ISPs are higher than switching costs for streaming services (like Netflix or Amazon), not just in terms of dollars but time and hassle. I don't know that many people would be willing to switch ISPs just because Netflix costs a bit more. And in some areas, Comcast is the only ISP.
Nothing spurs innovation more than a challenge. Maybe we'll see it with large-scale peer-to-peer technology that Netflix may help innovate to respond to higher streaming costs, or it may be an opportunity for an different ISP model to enter the market or expand their existing footprint (like Google).
Eg. If you take as axioms that it is always wrong to end life, and life begins at conception, abortion is wrong is a sound logical conclusion.