Conversational AE (APPLIED EPISTEMOLOGY)

[Mick Harper]

A and B's personal relationship, their overall opinion of the other, is irrelevant. The dominant factor appears to be A's assumption that he knows more than B specifically about the subject in hand and that if only B would listen to him carefully enough, all would be well. He therefore proceeds on that assumption.

Since B is thinking the exact same thing the result seems to be two people, not so much at loggerheads, as continually 'just missing' in getting their point across. However the exercise is not a futile one, apart from in the sense that agreement will never be achieved.

At one level, the exercise is an exercise. It is quite unusual, in our daily lives, to be having reasonably high level discourses with people who disagree with us but do not disengage because of it. So it becomes an opportunity to hone rhetorical skills.

But more importantly, it drives oneself to learn more about the subject, to (dare one say?) think about the subject... but in an unusual way. Since you anticipate having to be both on the attack and in defence it is not sufficient--as it would be in, say, a random encounter on the internet or with a taxi-driver--to have the standard tropes worked out in your head and just deploy them as appropriate.

You are forced to dig deeper. Remember the old AE saying: you can't improve by an effort of will. You have to 'enter a programme'.

[Mick Harper]

All that remains now is -- since we are AE-ists -- to go back and identify the specific reason why me and Wiley continue to slip past one another re Ukraine and Iran. The problem is that neither A nor B can do that for themselves.

A might be able to work out what's ailing B but he won't accept B's explanation for why A is being so stubborn. We could, I suppose, appeal to the judgement of C but we would reject it if it did not accord with our own judgement. What does he know? Even less than A or B.

[Mick Harper]

All I can do therefore is to say why I think Wiley is slipping past me. Not vice versa. That reason will have certain characteristics

* It cannot be obvious, otherwise Wiley would recognise it and correct it
* It cannot apply to me, otherwise I would already have corrected it
* It must be 'general' because it applies to both Ukraine and Iran
* It must be generally suffered (unless it only applies to AE-ists)

That reason is the tendency to draw technical conclusions from situations involving disputing parties that favour the party we favour rather than from the situation itself. In these particular cases -- and only in these particular cases -- Wiley favours Ukraine and Iran. So do I, but I do not suffer from this particular handicap.

[Mick Harper]

AE-ist: Every time we disagree, try to remember it is because I am smarter than you.
Punter: There's no chance of that. You aren't.
AE-ist: It does not mean necessarily that I am right and you are wrong.
Punter: Fancy!
AE-ist: Only that the source of our disagreement lies in my superior understanding.
Punter: As opposed to...?
AE-ist: One or other of us labouring under the handicap of some a priori assumption.
Punter: Heaven forfend.
AE-ist: I tell you what, just try it one time.
Punter: Try what?
AE-ist: The next time we disagree, try assuming it is because I am smarter than you rather than that I must be labouring under an a priori assumption.
Punter: And you're going to extend the same courtesy to me?
AE-ist: No.
Punter: Why not?
AE-ist: Technical reasons.

[Mick Harper]

But are they technical reasons?

In this context, yes. Presumably the punter is occupying the orthodox position and the AE-ist is putting forward a revisionist argument. That would mean the AE-ist has already rejected the punter's case in favour of the one he now espouses.

The two arguments do not have the same status:

* One is old, near-universally believed and acquired via indoctrination (or unconsciously by peer association)
* The other is new, believed by very few (possibly one person) and acquired by choice (or minted by the speaker).

It must be the case that this does not make the latter true and the former false, but it does mean the latter is superior to the former. It has been preferred on a level playing field. The number of adherents is irrelevant since the revisionist has already taken this into account. (Unless he is labouring under some form of a priori contrarianism.)

It is not, however, the case that this means the AE-ist is smarter than the punter. It is part of the AE ethos that they have roughly the same amount of brain power and it is AE that is making the difference.