Disagreements are everywhere, from holiday dinners to social media skirmishes. The hosts explore the differences between online conflicts and philosophical debates. They discuss how confidence shapes our beliefs and the challenges of engaging with contrasting views. Historical communication methods are revisited to foster better discourse. The conversation touches on the intricacies of belief disagreements and how personal anecdotes can illuminate differing opinions. Rethinking disagreement as a path to understanding can open doors to constructive dialogues.
59:43
forum Ask episode
web_stories AI Snips
view_agenda Chapters
menu_book Books
auto_awesome Transcript
info_circle Episode notes
question_answer ANECDOTE
Overthink Hosts' Disagreements
Ellie and David discuss their difficulty disagreeing on podcast topics due to shared backgrounds and values.
Their biggest disagreement revolves around separating art from the artist, sparking a heated, unproductive argument.
insights INSIGHT
Unsatisfying Online Disagreements
Online disagreements are often unproductive due to anonymity, brevity, and bad faith arguments.
The format of platforms like Twitter exacerbates this by limiting expression and fostering a chaotic environment.
insights INSIGHT
Disagreement as Exchange
Traditional philosophical disagreements emphasized exchange and dialogue, unlike online 'shitstorms'.
Socratic dialogues, medieval disputations, and early modern letters exemplify this historical exchange.
Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode
On Certainty is a collection of notes written by Ludwig Wittgenstein in the last eighteen months of his life. The book responds to G. E. Moore's essays, particularly 'A Defence of Common Sense' and 'Proof of an External World'. Wittgenstein examines the nature of certainty and how certain propositions are foundational to our language games and forms of life. He argues that these propositions are not subject to doubt because they are deeply integrated into our daily activities and worldviews. The work challenges traditional philosophical skepticism and epistemology, suggesting that certainty is not based on empirical evidence but on the rules and practices of our language games[3][4][5].
The Medieval Culture of Disputation
The Medieval Culture of Disputation
None
Alex J. Novikoff
When Disagreement Gets Ugly, Perceptions of Bias and the Escalation of Conflict
When Disagreement Gets Ugly, Perceptions of Bias and the Escalation of Conflict
None
Kathleen Kennedy
In the Swarm
Digital Prospects
Byung-Chul Han
Byung-Chul Han's "In the Swarm" delves into the complexities of digital society, exploring how technology shapes our interactions and perceptions. He critiques the pervasive nature of digital networks, arguing that they foster a sense of superficial connection and hinder genuine communication. The book examines the impact of social media on individual autonomy and the erosion of traditional social structures. Han's analysis offers a critical perspective on the psychological and societal consequences of our increasingly interconnected world. Ultimately, he calls for a more mindful approach to technology and a renewed emphasis on individual agency.
Persistent Disagreement
Persistent Disagreement
None
Catherine Z. Elgin
Philosophy and Disagreement
Philosophy and Disagreement
None
Brian Ribeiro
Capitalist Realism
Is There No Alternative?
Mark Fisher
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Thomas Kuhn
In 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', Thomas S. Kuhn argues that scientific progress does not occur through a gradual accumulation of facts, but rather through periodic revolutions that disrupt existing paradigms. Kuhn introduces the concept of 'normal science' and 'revolutionary science', where normal science involves puzzle-solving within an established paradigm, and revolutionary science involves a paradigm shift that fundamentally changes the way scientists view the world. He explains that these revolutions are driven by the accumulation of anomalies that cannot be explained by the current paradigm, leading to a crisis and eventually a new paradigm that offers a different perspective and new ways of conducting research[1][3][5].
From the holiday dinner table to the Twitter fandom wars, disagreements are inescapable. In episode 120 of Overthink, Ellie and David talk through different types of disagreement (e.g. disagreements online vs philosophical disagreements) and consider why we have such a tough time dealing with those who don’t see things as we do. Is the format of social media platforms to blame for the bad faith disagreements that occur on them? What role do confidence and conviction play in disagreement? Can we have a world without disagreement, or is disagreement an inevitable feature of our social lives? And how can we navigate the “shitstorm” when others refuse to agree with us? Prepare to turn on disagreement mode as you listen to two doctors of disagreement reason their way through it all. Plus, in the bonus, they discuss ways of overcoming disagreement, the failure of our education system, and the importance of community in online disagreement.
Works Discussed: Byung-Chul Han, In the Swarm Catherine Elgin, “Persistent Disagreement” Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism Kathleen Kennedy, “When Disagreement Gets Ugly, Perceptions of Bias and the Escalation of Conflict” Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Alex J. Novikoff, The Medieval Culture of Disputation Brian Ribeiro, “Philosophy and Disagreement” Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty
Overthink 
