On these types of forums it’s easy to jump into an argument about the technicalities or a post or comment.

You should know, though, that there is a theory called Ways of Knowing which defines Separate Knowing and Connected Knowing. It’s been a part of my masters program I’m taking.

Separate knowing disconnects the humanity and context from what’s being said and tries to only argue the “facts”. But facts, and the things people say, don’t just occur in a vacuum. It often is the case when people are arguing past each other, like on the internet.

Connected Knowing is approaching the thing someone said with the understanding that there is a context, humanity, biases, different experiences, and human error that can all jumble up when people are sharing information.

Maybe even just knowing that there’s different ways to know would be helpful for us to engage in a different level of conversation here. I’m not sure. I just wanted to share!

https://capstone.unst.pdx.edu/sites/default/files/Critical Thinking Article_0.pdf

    • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Arguing from empathy with no regard for facts is hopeless.

      Arguing from facts with no regard for empathy is dangerous.

      We need both.

      • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most times, empathy is not enough. And for some people, nothing is enough.

        “There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion.” —Daniel Dennett

        • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not all people can be persuaded by “connected knowing” (not a big fan of this terminology), but many can be (over time).

          NOBODY, however, who can’t be persuaded by “connected knowing” will be persuaded by “separate learning”, so I’m not sure what your point here is.

          • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            My point is some people are beyond hope.

            Those are the ones who will destroy the world, and they’ll do it cheerily.

            • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes. Some people are beyond hope. Therefore we shouldn’t bother with empathy with all people. This is exactly how logic works. Yes.

              But yes, indeed, some people are beyond hope. It’s why I won’t bother engaging with you further. (Guess where you just got categorized…)