Minds Almost Meeting
Disagreement and alienation (Agnes Callard & Robin Hanson, with Berislav Marušić)
Feb 28, 2024
Economist Robin Hanson and philosopher Agnes Callard explore disagreements and alienation, challenging conventional perspectives. They discuss the rationality of differing opinions, the complexities of belief formation, and the importance of engaging in reasoning-based conversations. The podcast highlights the significance of judging arguments based on merit alone and suspending judgment to navigate disagreements effectively.
01:07:06
Episode guests
AI Summary
Highlights
AI Chapters
Episode notes
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
- Disagreement should be viewed as an interpersonal exchange of reasoning, focusing on engaging with others' arguments rather than just defending personal beliefs.
- Evidence selection in conversations is crucial, requiring individuals to adhere to specific categories of evidence to promote effective communication and shared reasoning.
Deep dives
The Rationality of Disagreement
Disagreement in philosophy is usually framed as two individuals producing differing opinions on a topic. The common responses are to stick with one's reasons or give equal weight to both opinions. The central idea of the discussed paper challenges this framing, suggesting that disagreement is distorted by overlooking the interpersonal nature of reasoning. Conversations are viewed as moments of shared reasoning, where individuals engage with each other's arguments rather than solely relying on their beliefs as evidence. The paper emphasizes the importance of responding to disagreement with further reasoning.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
