If I don't agree with you about something that can not be proven scientifically, it just means that we're probably looking at the same thing from different sides.
What we do next is a choice and an action.
Do I tell you that you're "wrong", even though there's no way to show or prove it?
Do you tell me that I'm "wrong", even though you can't prove it?
If the focus and goal for BOTH of us is really about the object, idea, or concept we're both looking at, then who's "right" and who's "wrong" would not be important at all.
But if one of us was more focused on dominating the other person, then of course someone being "right" or "wrong" would be the primary focus.
When people are in discussion, the focus is either on the people who are in the discussion, or the focus is on the topic itself. There are specific reasons for each.
When information and exploration is the REAL focus, then there is no arguing, condescension or ego, there is only sharing what one has observed and figured out from one's own point of view, and adding that with what others have observed from their own points of view. Like adding together small pieces of a larger puzzle.
Argument, countering, insult, condescension, and hostility means someone is having an emotional reaction, is emotionally invested, and wants to be "right" or wants another person to be "wrong".
If every person can only see one color in a spectrum, then the only way to find out what a spectrum looks like is for everyone to tell what they see, and for everyone to listen. There are no right or wrong colors in a rainbow.
Logical Fallacies: Ad Hominem
What we do next is a choice and an action.
Do I tell you that you're "wrong", even though there's no way to show or prove it?
Do you tell me that I'm "wrong", even though you can't prove it?
If the focus and goal for BOTH of us is really about the object, idea, or concept we're both looking at, then who's "right" and who's "wrong" would not be important at all.
But if one of us was more focused on dominating the other person, then of course someone being "right" or "wrong" would be the primary focus.
When people are in discussion, the focus is either on the people who are in the discussion, or the focus is on the topic itself. There are specific reasons for each.
When information and exploration is the REAL focus, then there is no arguing, condescension or ego, there is only sharing what one has observed and figured out from one's own point of view, and adding that with what others have observed from their own points of view. Like adding together small pieces of a larger puzzle.
Argument, countering, insult, condescension, and hostility means someone is having an emotional reaction, is emotionally invested, and wants to be "right" or wants another person to be "wrong".
If every person can only see one color in a spectrum, then the only way to find out what a spectrum looks like is for everyone to tell what they see, and for everyone to listen. There are no right or wrong colors in a rainbow.
Logical Fallacies: Ad Hominem
