Consistency, Bah Humbug

[David Sklansky]

Here is your answer:

Truly inconsistent positions are impossible to both be correct. If you hold both positions it means you had to have made an error when you got to at least one of those positions. Or that, more likely you didn't even get to that position through thought. But rather through unexamined feelings which you then tried to rationalize.

In real life most situations do not have the exact same circumstances behind them. Eating dogs as delicacies is different than dog fighting. Killing Iraqi children for the benefit of mankind is different than killing embryos for their stem cells for the benefit of mankind. Thus it is logically possible to come to two different kinds of conclusions. Since even the slightest change in a variable opens up the possibility that a chain of deductions will get diametrically opposed answers.

But even though it is possible, IT IS NOT LIKELY. In other words if someone has opposite conclusions about situations that can be shown to have very similar variables (although it might take some non trivial thinking to show it) it is a good bet that the opposite conclusions came from shoddy thinking or rationalized wishfull thinking rather than because of the loophole that the variables didn't perfectly coincide. Even if you personally are an exception, you must know that most people aren't.

Therefore it is extremely valuable to point out quasi inconsistency to people who honestly want to examine their positions for bias or stupidity.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
re is your answer:

Truly inconsistent positions are impossible to both be correct. If you hold both positions it means you had to have made an error when you got to at least one of those positions. Or that, more likely you didn't even get to that position through thought. But rather through unexamined feelings which you then tried to rationalize.

In real life most situations do not have the exact same circumstances behind them. Eating dogs as delicacies is different than dog fighting. Killing Iraqi children for the benefit of mankind is different than killing embryos for their stem cells for the benefit of mankind. Thus it is logically possible to come to two different kinds of conclusions. Since even the slightest change in a variable opens up the possibility that a chain of deductions will get diametrically opposed answers.

But even though it is possible, IT IS NOT LIKELY. In other words if someone has opposite conclusions about situations that can be shown to have very similar variables (although it might take some non trivial thinking to show it) it is a good bet that the opposite conclusions came from shoddy thinking or rationalized wishfull thinking rather than because of the loophole that the variables didn't perfectly coincide. Even if you personally are an exception, you must know that most people aren't.

Therefore it is extremely valuable to point out quasi inconsistency to people who honestly want to examine their positions for bias or stupidity.


[/ QUOTE ]

Does the Quantum Mechanical paradox of particle/wave duality apply here? It may be proven that one of the sides are guilty of shoddy thinking but their experimental facts have led them to this conundrum. There are of course some who subscribe to only one of the theories but many who live with this ambiguity and continue the work.

Life is full of paradoxes but I'd maintain that one who decides to decry consistency is aware of these paradoxes and adjusts accordingly.

[ QUOTE ]
"Consistency is the foundation of virtue." - Francis Bacon



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No well-informed person ever imputed inconsistency to another for changing his mind." - Marcus T. Cicero



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." - Bernard Berenson

[/ QUOTE ]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
But even though it is possible, IT IS NOT LIKELY. In other words if someone has opposite conclusions about situations that can be shown to have very similar variables (although it might take some non trivial thinking to show it) it is a good bet that the opposite conclusions came from shoddy thinking or rationalized wishfull thinking rather than because of the loophole that the variables didn't perfectly coincide. Even if you personally are an exception, you must know that most people aren't.


[/ QUOTE ]
that can be correct but its often wrong. These variables you speak of are often of no relevence to the people forming the beliefs, they arise from an attempt to rationalise the belief.

When you attempt to rationalise two beliefs and find that they appear similar and quasi inconsistent then it can be the the rationalisation that is at fault. this can be because the rationalisation needs modification or because the beliefs aren't rational in the first place. 'rational' people struggle to accept that the source of their beliefs isn't rational.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore it is extremely valuable to point out quasi inconsistency to people who honestly want to examine their positions for bias or stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, here we are pointing out the mistake in claiming consistent things are inconsistent to those who honestly want to examine their position for bias or stupidity.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is your answer:

Truly inconsistent positions are impossible to both be correct. If you hold both positions it means you had to have made an error when you got to at least one of those positions. Or that, more likely you didn't even get to that position through thought. But rather through unexamined feelings which you then tried to rationalize.

In real life most situations do not have the exact same circumstances behind them. Eating dogs as delicacies is different than dog fighting. Killing Iraqi children for the benefit of mankind is different than killing embryos for their stem cells for the benefit of mankind. Thus it is logically possible to come to two different kinds of conclusions. Since even the slightest change in a variable opens up the possibility that a chain of deductions will get diametrically opposed answers.

But even though it is possible, IT IS NOT LIKELY. In other words if someone has opposite conclusions about situations that can be shown to have very similar variables (although it might take some non trivial thinking to show it) it is a good bet that the opposite conclusions came from shoddy thinking or rationalized wishfull thinking rather than because of the loophole that the variables didn't perfectly coincide. Even if you personally are an exception, you must know that most people aren't.

Therefore it is extremely valuable to point out quasi inconsistency to people who honestly want to examine their positions for bias or stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, a position you wouldn't expect from your knowledge of a persons other positions can be a 'what the hey' trigger. I was focusing on the validity of the positions themselves and the use of "they're inconsistent" as an argument against them, in and of itself.

The discussion can well start with ... "How can you claim X and Y?" but the actual claims X and Y need weighing on their own and the only inconsistency left is a conflicting premise, X based on the world being flat and Y based on the world being spherical.

You have answered a different question, "why do people point out apparent inconsistencies?" I was asking, "Why are apparent inconsistencies claimed as a gotcha?"

thanks, luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, here we are pointing out the mistake in claiming consistent things are inconsistent to those who honestly want to examine their position for bias or stupidity.


[/ QUOTE ]

The flip side of this is perhaps even more frustrating for me, and perhaps more common - claiming that two situations deserve the same conclusion when in fact they are two different, but similar, cases. It sometimes comes with a "well, to be consistent we have to ...".

On either side of the coin I don't see consistency as a factor to weigh into the conclusion. Merely, as DS points out, it can act as a red flag to possible sloppy thinking.

luckyme

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is your answer:

Truly inconsistent positions are impossible to both be correct. If you hold both positions it means you had to have made an error when you got to at least one of those positions. Or that, more likely you didn't even get to that position through thought. But rather through unexamined feelings which you then tried to rationalize.

In real life most situations do not have the exact same circumstances behind them. Eating dogs as delicacies is different than dog fighting. Killing Iraqi children for the benefit of mankind is different than killing embryos for their stem cells for the benefit of mankind. Thus it is logically possible to come to two different kinds of conclusions. Since even the slightest change in a variable opens up the possibility that a chain of deductions will get diametrically opposed answers.

But even though it is possible, IT IS NOT LIKELY. In other words if someone has opposite conclusions about situations that can be shown to have very similar variables (although it might take some non trivial thinking to show it) it is a good bet that the opposite conclusions came from shoddy thinking or rationalized wishfull thinking rather than because of the loophole that the variables didn't perfectly coincide. Even if you personally are an exception, you must know that most people aren't.

Therefore it is extremely valuable to point out quasi inconsistency to people who honestly want to examine their positions for bias or stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, a position you wouldn't expect from your knowledge of a persons other positions can be a 'what the hey' trigger. I was focusing on the validity of the positions themselves and the use of "they're inconsistent" as an argument against them, in and of itself.

The discussion can well start with ... "How can you claim X and Y?" but the actual claims X and Y need weighing on their own and the only inconsistency left is a conflicting premise, X based on the world being flat and Y based on the world being spherical.

You have answered a different question, "why do people point out apparent inconsistencies?" I was asking, "Why are apparent inconsistencies claimed as a gotcha?"

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no harm in pointing them out. Either you'll end up digging deeper and finding the difference between the positions, or you'll find out that the person is just a lazy thinker who doesn't want to have to support his opinions.

In both cases you learn something - either something more about the situation, or to ignore the guy in the future.