Claim OwnershipBeing Reasonable
Subscribed: 73Played: 2,339
Subscribe
© 2019 Mark Solomon
Description
Being Reasonable is the weekly conversation show that focuses on how we have arrived on our deeply-held views and our desire to know what is true. The conversational technique used in this podcast is known as ‘Street Epistemology’ and all episodes are ‘evergreen’.
88 Episodes
Reverse
First, Nancy discusses her belief in reincarnation. Next, Deanna talks about her belief that no one religion has the absolute truth. And finally, Tom discusses his belief in Christianity.
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States
These are conversations with people who don't just redefine terms, but who also actively obfuscate and avoid meaning. They seem to have an interest in the appearance or artifice of sense, but are scared of getting anywhere near intelligibility or reasoning. It's like listening to 5-year-olds talk about their imaginary worlds. They've seemingly cut the line between reality and their live-action role-playing.
Good grief, man: why does it take half an hour to get around to an obvious question? Why should we believe the Bible contains no inaccurate information? (Because the Bible says so?) Come on, Mark, this is just counter-apologetics. You seem to have enabled the IL merely to put Tommy on the defensive. What did you think you'd get from a pastor who's a former attorney? E.g., you got the IL to say he'd ask Tommy what it would take to get him to change his beliefs, but rather than turning that question back to the IL, you started answering for Tommy. Maybe you thought you'd condescendingly provide a model of how to reply, but all the pastor wanted was for you to be on the back foot, so he could keep asking questions to put the focus on Tommy. And you obliged, repeatedly... because, at most, only one of you was having a good-faith discussion.
Mark, first, I admire your tenacity and, as ever, your clinical interviewing skills. However, interviewing pastors is a frustrating waste of time. They are performers. This guest--a former lawyer--is a prime example that they are *advocates* with a conflict of interest (i.e., their livelihoods), not arbiters. Moreover, they are renown for regurgitating apologetic garbage with little regard for interviewers' questions and seemingly no awareness of counter-apologetics. They are performing and you are providing a stage. Additionally, I think it might help if you were to have more extensive knowledge of formal logic. I find that an understanding of symbolic logic and forms of argument helps abstract from the irrelevant details and focus on the core of the nonsense being posited. (It would also help for you to get drawn less into ILs' red herrings--a specialty of clergy--and stay focused on epistemics rather than factual claims.) Granted, blathering, disingenuous performers (e.g., pre
I find Anthony's way of speaking very unnatural and stilted. His word choices often seem strange.
For the second guest, it might've been interesting to ask how she interprets the fact that many people die in car accidents. That is, if someone survives a car crash, God exists. If they don't, God exists. Moreover, if a good outcome is RARE, God is good--in fact, somehow, the rareness of his goodness is just seen as evidence of his goodness. Conversely, if a good outcome is common, God is good.
I enjoyed the many comedic ironies of this guy's meandering deepities. It's hard to pick a favorite, but "All it takes is the faith of a child," is high on the list.
That NYC analogy became a mess. I think Mark might enjoy and benefit from some courses on logical argumentation. It can be very helpful to recognize logical errors by name, and therefore link them to ways of dealing with those errors. Of course, most of his guests' arguments are all error. For the NYC analogy, you might've asked about Atlantis, and the situation in which many different people are telling Todd to travel exclusively to many different cities... and as it happens, the guest thinks none of those other cities exist... and by the way, in this analogy, none of us has ever been to a city. Like I said, it was a mess of an analogy from the start, which is why the guest used it.
She has a PhD in special education, Mark. (I'm not sure why on Earth that's a PhD vs an EdD, but that's irrelevant.) Here, she opines on quantum physics, physiology, and medicine, all while you refer to her as "doctor" without stating her field. What the Hell are you doing, Mark?
Ugh. Come on, Mark. Yet again, you refer to a guest as doctor, but give no indication of the field. As I've said before, you're supporting the notion that a doctoral degree of any sort confers generalizable expertise or credibility. At ~6:00, she claimed to have a PhD and to be a scientist, but you left it at that. Ive not yet listened to the full episode to hear if the title or that specific epistemology resurface, but my point is that you use the titular framing without explaining why. It borders on an ad hominem accolade. I'm starting to think that this podcast is not just a platform for irrationality and an altar to dysfunctional rapport, but also a venue for eroding institutional credibility. There just isn't enough resistance in many of these conversations to achieve more than a cordial hosting of unintentionally dangerous nincompoops. Worse, I've yet to hear any evidence that these conversations achieve what SEers believe they achieve, though I doubt you produce this pod
You just had dinner with the Mad Hatter.
It seems most of us are entirely blind to the distinction between observation and attribution. Maybe it would help to focus more of these conversations on that particular distinction, especially when people claim their beliefs are based on personal experiences.
"Timmy" and "Tommy" seem like patronizing names for an analog, given that you're insinuating that the IL is childish. I.e., your analog goes by a childish nickname. (#notalltommies, but most.)
"I believe this with certainty, 7 out of 7." Why? "Because we can't know things for sure." Do words have meanings for you? "Potato." Behold, yet another religiously labotomized, deepity-belching automaton.
Another great interview, Mark. At the end, when discussing her evil twin, I think it might have helped to refer to the evil twin using her epistemology, not her belief. I understood her confusion and objections, because I think you referred to the evil twin using (a) her belief for ill rather than (b) her epistemology to arrive at a harm-causing belief (which, by the way, needn't rely on malfeasance).
You've had great clinical interviewing skills throughout this podcast, Mark. What I heard in this episode was increasing mastery of the subtle, seamless incorporation of steered critical thinking. In past episodes, those two components sounded a bit more separate and compensatory, as if you thought each step in critical thinking cost rapport. I still hear that concern (especially when you say, e.g., "... and I sincerely mean that..." as if the alternative were conspicuously lurking), though less so. Really great interview, Mark.
@28:27: Ha! Were they all boys, though? How does she know that? Who is she to say? I'm pretty sure at least one of them had a conch.
@22:35: Ah, yes. That was definitely Laverne Cox's turn of phrase. (Does that count as "cultural appropriation"?)
@11:40: You hit the nail on the head.
I'm confused by the fact that the title suggests Geoff is the IL, yet the IL refers to Geoff in the 3rd person.
Aliens of the gaps.