My beliefs are based on existing evidence and rational analysis.
when I am confronted with new information, I add that into my belief system and my belief system changes accordingly.
your belief system is “nuh uh, I never heard that before so how real can it be?”
your linked paper is a more conplicated description of exactly what I have been describing your problem as.
you are trying to pretend that words simply mean other words.
you are selfish.
you can agree or disagree, it doesn’t change the selfishness of taking away others rights to advance your own sense of self-worth.
The democratic party advances social policy that benefits society at large and affords more rights to everyone.
your toddler terror tantrum threat is that you’ll take away the rights of others if they won’t make you feel good.
that is selfish by definition.
it doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with anybody else, taking away the rights of others unless they applaud your flawed thought experiments is selfish.
freedom to disagree is not the issue.
comfortably ensconced in the illogical feedback loop of your own belief system, you are acting selfishly.
when I am confronted with new information, I add that into my belief system and my belief system changes accordingly
You’ve misunderstood the paper
It’s not about information. The argument is about disagreement among epistemic peers. We all have the same information. You’ve not provided any information I didn’t already know. I’ve not provided any information you didn’t already know. We’ve been exchanging theories, not information.
The paper is about the status of disagreement in conclusions based on the same information.
As I said in my other comment, if you really can’t tell the difference between a theory and the facts on which it is based, then we can’t possibly have a rational discussion since rational discussion is premised entirely on that distinction.
We don’t discuss facts, we demonstrate them by the presentation of evidence. We discuss theories drawn from those facts.
this is literally your problem.
you only believe in things you already believe.
My beliefs are based on existing evidence and rational analysis.
when I am confronted with new information, I add that into my belief system and my belief system changes accordingly.
your belief system is “nuh uh, I never heard that before so how real can it be?”
your linked paper is a more conplicated description of exactly what I have been describing your problem as.
you are trying to pretend that words simply mean other words.
you are selfish.
you can agree or disagree, it doesn’t change the selfishness of taking away others rights to advance your own sense of self-worth.
The democratic party advances social policy that benefits society at large and affords more rights to everyone.
your toddler terror tantrum threat is that you’ll take away the rights of others if they won’t make you feel good.
that is selfish by definition.
it doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with anybody else, taking away the rights of others unless they applaud your flawed thought experiments is selfish.
freedom to disagree is not the issue.
comfortably ensconced in the illogical feedback loop of your own belief system, you are acting selfishly.
You’ve misunderstood the paper
It’s not about information. The argument is about disagreement among epistemic peers. We all have the same information. You’ve not provided any information I didn’t already know. I’ve not provided any information you didn’t already know. We’ve been exchanging theories, not information.
The paper is about the status of disagreement in conclusions based on the same information.
As I said in my other comment, if you really can’t tell the difference between a theory and the facts on which it is based, then we can’t possibly have a rational discussion since rational discussion is premised entirely on that distinction.
We don’t discuss facts, we demonstrate them by the presentation of evidence. We discuss theories drawn from those facts.
“You’ve misunderstood the paper.”
I’m sure you wish I had.
repeatedly failing to gaslight me must be very frustrating for you.
“We’ve been exchanging theories, not information.”
parts make information not understanding of limited presented invalid information accurately does.
or, rephrased: I just
prior limited understanding of pieces of information does not invalidate the importance or accuracy of that information as a whole.
We are exchanging information, whether you recognize it or not.